به نام خداوند جان و خرد

کزین اندیشه برتر برنگذرد

-----------------------------------------------------------

ازمند امدند و سیل اسا

در کفی تیغ و در کفی یاسا

تنگ چشمان گول نابخرد

چاروازادگان صـحرا گرد

بدسگالان کژ نهاد پلشـت

دوزخی چهرگان سفله زشت

غولهای پلید ناهنجار

اژدها وش ددان خونخوار

خیل دیوان دل سپرده به ریو

تا به گردونشان رسیده غریو

بدگهر تیره ای انیرانی

خواستاران جنگ و ویرانی

کرده اغشته تیغ ها با زهر

ارزومند فتح ایرانشهر

به گمانی که تهمتن خوابست

نقش ایران فتاده بر ابست

یا یل تیزچنگ سرکش ؛ گیو

رفت و پردخته شد جهان از نیو

یا که بیژن ؛ هژبر رزم اگاه

سرنگون اوفتاده اندر چاه

یا که ارش به تیر پرتابی

نیست شد زیر گنبد ابی

یا که شد بیدرفشت جادو چیر

بر نبرده سوار یکه ؛ زریر

یا که اسفندیار پهلو مرد

و ان نهال دلاوری پژمرد

با خیالات خام و سودایی

کرده پا در رکاب خودرایی

اتش افروز و جانشکار و جسور

مست خودکامگی ز جام غرور

مردمانی نبرده بهره ز هوش

زندگی کرده در کنار وحوش

همچو اهریمنان خوف انگیز

تاختند اسب فتنه با چنگیز

کینه ها توختند و خون راندند

خشک و تر هرچه بود سوزاندند

بی خبر زانکه ارش و بیژن

گیو و اسفندیار رویین تن

یا زریر سوار و رستم زال

و انهمه شیر سرکشیده ز یال

از کیومرث نامدار سترگ

تا به بهمن ؛ یلان خرد و بزرگ

سربسر نام گوهری فردست

که ستیهنده تر زهر مردست

گوهری ابدیده در کوره

خون تاریخ و روح اسطوره

گوهری با تباری از فرهنگ

بسته بر خصم شرزه چون پالاهنگ

گوهری شبچراغ گمراهی

مطلع افتاب اگاهی

گوهری پرورنده ی پاکی

فره ای ایزدی و افلاکی

گوهری نخلبند اندیشه

کرده در خاک معرفت ریشه

جنگ ان بدرگان خشم اور

جنگ خرمهره بود با گوهر

چالشی دیگر از گذشته ی دور

بین پروردگان ظلمت و نور

کهنه پیکار اهریمن رایی

با سبک روحی اهورایی

کارزاری که جز سیه روزی

بدگمان را نبود از ان روزی

گیر و داری که گوهر فرهنگ

زد بر ان مهر نام و داغ ننگ

مهر نامی که تا به جاویدان

می درخشد به تارک ایران

داغ ننگی که تا به رستاخیز

می کشد تار شرم ان چنگیز

(این شعر که به توسط شاعر معاصر ؛ محمد پیمان ؛ سروده شده پیوست مقاله ای بوده است . نگاه کنید به : البرز ؛ پرویز ؛ « سیری در شعر اجتماعی وانتقادی عصر مغول » ؛ مجموعه مقالات اولین سمینار تاریخی هجوم مغول ؛ ج۱ ؛ ص۸۲-۸۱)

By Garshasp

(Note this material was not checked thoroughly for grammatical/spelling mistakes due to lack of time.  The article was written in September 2007.  If some of the links given in this article do not work, please use www.archive.org and look for the 2006-2008 time frames ).

 

It is sad that in this age and day, there are people actively working to create ethnic discord, tension and animosity between groups of people due to language, religion or etc.         

 

This article clearly shows that the recent book by Alireza Asgharzadeh is unscholarly, un-academic and racist.  The book by Alireza Asgharzadeh titled: “A. Asgharzadeh, Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles , Palgrave Macmillan (June 12, 2007) )” is full of conspiracy theories and based upon pseudo-scholars who support conspiracy theories.  The book is incoherent and inconsistent in terms of putting forward the racist thesis of the author.  The aim of the current article is to examine the book and show the multitude of inconsistent argument, historical revisionism and selective amnesia of quoting sources by Alireza Asgharzadeh.  The current article only examines some of the falsehood and historical forgeries perpetuated by Alireza Asgharzadeh.  Had the writer of this article attempted to expose the falsehood of every single argument of Alireza Asgharzadeh, the article would simply be more than 1000 pages.  But sufficient examples are given to show that Alireza Asgharzadeh is himself an extremely racist person, supports pan-Turkism and is a historical revisionist.

 

 An important note should be made that Alireza Asgharzadeh uses the term Azerbaijani and Turk equivalently.  Thus when the author of this  article states statements such as: “X does not have anything to do with Turkic culture”, it does not mean that “X does not have anything to do with Azerbaijani culture”.  But since Alireza Asgharzadeh uses the term interchangeably, the author of this article will take a note of this.  Also some of the language used in this article might seem a bit straight forward, but when any Iranian who has not been tainted by anti-Iranian ideologies like pan-Turkism reads the book of Alireza Asgharzadeh, the response will naturally be straight forward.  After the complete response, the author will give his suggestion and strategy on confronting pan-Turkism which has risen due to the ignorance of the Islamic republic and its lack of interest in Iranian nationhood and also due to foreign influence as will be shown.  Also the author wishes to express that he has nothing against the citizens of any neighboring country including Turkey or Azerbaijan republic and does not judge humans based on their background which they have not chosen.  But there is not a shadow of doubt that there are expansionist groups in these countries which actually inhibit mutual regional development and have expressed their desire to separate NW Iran from Iran.  Thus some of the comments of this article should be seen in this defensive light.  Note: This article might be expanded slightly in the future to take into account several other falsehoods created by pan-Turkist chavaunists.

 

Three revisionist writers quoted heavily by Asgharzadeh. 5

Naser Pourpiar 5

Brenda Shaffer 12

Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi 16

Medes. 29

Parthians. 34

Other pseudo-scholars mentioned by Asgharzadeh. 34

Racist Websites. 34

Javad Heyat 35

Sadiq Mohammadzadeh. 35

Alireza Nazmi Afshar 35

Historical Turco-Iranian Encounters. 37

Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period. 45

Persian language among Turkish dynasties. 51

Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan during Ghaznavids. 53

Negative view of Turks by the Ottomans. 56

Are Azeris Turks?. 58

Assimilation and Pan-Turkism in the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey. 64

Pan-Turkist claims on Iran in the 19th and early 20th century and selective historical amnesia by Alireza Asgharzadeh. 71

Iranian nationalism in the 19th century caucus. 72

Ottomon spreading of Pan-Turkism.. 72

Response to many of the false claims of Alireza Asgharzadeh. 91

Some Introductory material from Alireza Asgharzadeh. 91

Falsification of Iran’s history by Asgharzadeh. 97

Official Language of Iran and Asgharzadeh’s hiding of the truth. 106

Bogus Census of Demographics of Iran by Asgharzadeh. 108

Another Bogus figure. 117

Mamalek Mahrooseyeh Iran does not mean what Alireza Asgharzadeh claims. 118

Babak Khorramdin, an Iranian who fought against the Caliphs and their Turkish Soldiers. 120

Foreign Interference. 122

British meddling in Khuzestan. 122

Ottomon interference and pan-Turkism.. 123

USSR interference and Pishevari: 123

Saddam Hussein and Khuzestan. 125

The republic of Azerbaijan. 125

The West 126

Cartoon issue. 130

Response to Vaziri and Joya Sa’ad Blondel 137

Yes the majority of Iranians have been victims. 140

Elamites survived 2000+ years of Aryan presence but wiped out after the Arab and Seljuqid invasionsl 140

Dede Qorqod not related to pre-Islamic Iran. 160

Two unreliable writers does not equal many Iranian historians!! 162

Cuneiform and Greek and Old Persian. 163

Cyrus, the Old Testament and the passing away of Cyrus. 164

Asgharzadeh’s mis-information and falsification of the Avesta. 193

Ferdowsi, Shahnameh and Pan-Turkism.. 213

Omission of important sentences from sources. 241

Arya/Pars. 252

Rezashah/Khiyabani/Khazal/Ferqeh. 267

Pan-Turkists, Ferqeh and Kurds. 300

Nazi Germany and the Muslim World. 307

Arran and Azerbaijan. 311

Misrepresentation of Aref Qazvini and Shahryar 334

Afghanistan and Iraq. 336

More example of pan-Turkist historiography. 337

Conclusion. 339

 

Three revisionist writers quoted heavily by Asgharzadeh

 

Three people Asgharzadeh quotes heavily are Naser Pourpirar ,  Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi and Brenda Shaffer.   Both the political background and revisionist and outright manipulation of these three writers is discussed in Section I.  Of course, if Brenda Shaffer is reading this, she might want to skip over the Naser Pourpirar section, since Naser Pourpirar is heavily used by Asgharzadeh.  At the same time, since she gave a positive review of a Pourpirar based book, she might want to read what kind of sources she is supporting and is it really in her countries (Israel’s) interest.

 

Naser Pourpiar

 

 

http://www.naria.blogfa.com/Photo/n/naria.jpg

 

(Picture taken from his blog: www.naria.blogfa.com)

 

 

The scholarly background of Naser Pourpirar is unknown.  The current author has examined Pourpirar’s weblog (www.naria.blogfa.com) and Pourpirar has never admitted at having more than a diploma and this claim is confirmed by different sources.  Of course not having more than diploma is nothing unworthy and the author only looks at the arguments of Pourpirar and not academic credentials.  But it should be noted that Pourpirar does know any ancient languages like Old Persian, Middle Persian, Soghdian, Elamite, Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Urartuian, Old Armenian, Parthian and etc.  But yet he has been heavily quoted by Asgharzadeh in pages

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh has quoted and mentioned Pourpirar in pages 8, 30, 49-52, 55, 57, 62, 79-81, 178, 198, 206, 236 and 237 of his book.  The false arguments quoted by Alireza Asgharzadeh from Pourpirar will be examined when we actually examine the book of Ali Reza Asgharzadeh in Section 4 of this article.

 

So far we have shown that the academic background of Pourpiar is unknown.  Indeed Pourpirar is famous for his anti-Semitic rhetorics and calling modern day universities as a center that propagate Jewish and Christian lies.

 

All the materials we quote are directly from Pourpirar’s writing and weblog.

 

Pourpirar's revisionism begins with the event of Purim, recorded in the Biblical Book of Esther. He believes that that Purim was a genocide committed against the native population of Iran by the Achaemenid Shah Darius I of Persia and his Jewish allies. He claims that:  after the great genocide committed by Jews in Purim, the land of Iran was completely wiped out of human beings until the beginning of Islam.

 

http://www.naria.blogfa.com/85084.aspx

 

Exact Persian:

 

از آن جا که وسعت نسل کشی یهودیان، در ماجرای پلید پوریم، سرزمین ایران راکاملا از سکنه خالی کرده بود، پس از ظهور اسلام، این سرزمین با ورود مهاجرینی از تمام همسایگان و از همه سو، به تدریج دارای کلنی های کوچک انسانی شد که کم ترین پیوند بومی با ایران کهن نداشتند و از مراتب و مناسک و فرهنگ و زبان و پوشش و باورهای پیشین سرزمین های اصلی خویش پیروی کرده اند. در این جا عمده ترین سئوال هویت شناسانه می پرسد کدام یک از مجموعه های زیستی پراکنده در سراسر ایران، در موقعیت های نخستین و کنونی و به چه دلیل و نشانه و تشابه، دنباله ی بومیان ایران کهن اند و چه همخوانی ماهوی در تولید و فرهنگ، میان ساکنان پس از اسلام و اقوام ماقبل پوریم وجود دارد؟

 

 

 

According to Pourpirar above: a few historic sites which are said to be Parthian, are indeed either clearly related to Greeks or are modern forgery. He claims all inscriptions which are said to be Sassanid are modern forgeries. He also believes that historical personalities such Mazdak, Mani, Zoroaster, Babak, Abu Moslem, Salman the Persian  were also invented by modern Jewish historians.

 

 

Actual quote of Pourpiar to one of his followers:

http://www.naria.blogfa.com/post-34.aspx

 

 

آقای یشایایی در آن مذاکره ی دراز مدت تلفنی نیز یادآور شدم که قتل عام مردم و محو تمدن و هستی شرق میانه، در ۲۵۰۰ سال پیش در ماجرای تاریخی پوریم، از نظر مورخ قابل دفاع تر از این دروغ نویسی و جعلیاتی است که مورخین و باستان شناسان یهود در تولیدات تاریخی قرن اخیر آورده اند، و برای پر کردن خلاء دراز مدت هستی در منطقه ی ما ، که حاصل گستردگی قتل عام پوریم بود، افسانه های اشکانیان و ساسانیان و زردشت و اوستا و مزدک و مانی را بر هم انباشته اند، جاعلانه کتیبه های ساسانی حک کرده اند، برای کورش در یک کشتزار چغندر، با دزدی از مصالح مسجد مسلمین، شهرک پاسارگاد ساخته اند، صدها خیانت دیگر در پراکندن اسراییلیات در میان اسناد فرهنگی مسلمین مرتکب شده اند که حاصل آن تولید شکاف و ایجاد تفرقه و دشمنی در میان مسلمین بوده است و گفتم که آن سبوی به شدت محافظت شده ی پوریم به همت تحقیقات مجموعه ی «تاملی در بنیان تاریخ ایران»، از دست یهودیان رها شده و شکسته است و اینک خردمندان منطقه ی ما از محتویات متعفن آن باخبرند.

 

 

He claims that all the history of Iran between Purim till modern day Safavids are forgeries.  Regarding reliability of Iranian dynasties he says: ‘’So everyone should know that the builders of the false historical and social lies of the last two thousand years between Purim till the Safavids were the Jews.  They wanted to hide their genocide and thus used lies by fabricating history.’’

 

Exact quote:

 

پس بدانید که سازنده ی تحرک اجتماعی دروغین، در دو هزار سال فاصله ی میان پوریم تا صفویه یهودیان اند، قصد اختفای نسل کشی کهن خویش را داشته اند و در این مورد از شگرد دروغ بافی غول آسا و غیر قابل مقاومت پیروی کرده اند ( پورپیرار/ مدخلی بر ایرانشناسی ... ( ۳۸ ) مورخ )۸/۱۲/۸۵(

 

 

The anti-Iranism of Pourpirar is so extreme that he praised Saddam Hussein as the "Great Arab hero" and the "symbol of resistance”.  Yet Asgharzadeh says about Pourpirar: Naser Poorpirar (or Pourpirar) is a very intelligent historian, and a very complex character.

 

See:

(Mazdak Bamdadan, “Jomhuriye Islami va Hoviyat Melli-e Ma”, Friday the 27th of Azar, 1383 (Pesian Hejri Calendar))

 

Of course Alireza Asgharzadeh does not mind, as long as Pourpirar throws some curses here and there against Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids and the Aryan (this term will be discussed in part 4) heritage of Iran.

 

 

Some more examples of Pourpirar’s revisionism from his own writing.

 

با اين توضيح کوتاه، اينک به کلمه‌ی "اورمزد" در کتيبه‌ داريوش بازمی‌گرديم که ترکيبی است توصيفی از دو واژه‌ی "اُو=اور" و "مزَد=مزدا". جزء اول اين ترکيب از واژه‌های شناخته شده و بسيار مصطلح غرب ايران و بين‌النهرين [ميان‌رودان]، به معنای شهر و سرزمين است... جزء دوم واژه ترکيبی اُرمزد، يعنی "مزد" همان کلمه‌ای است که در فارسی جديد بدل به مُزد شده است که خاورشناسان به غلط آن را "Muzd" می‌نويسند. اين کلمه در اوستايي "ميژد" آمده است که با مژده امروزين بسيار نزديک است» (دوازده قرن سکوت، ص124، سطر 22به بعد) و سپس «... و بدتر از آن متکی به متن اوستاست، که تدوین آن به همین اواخر در هند و با واژگان گجراتی باز می گردد» (همان، ص 134-135. (

 

 

Here Pourpirar on one hand is claiming to be an expert in Old Persian and saying Ahura Mazda in the Old Persian Inscription is wrongly interpreted by western scholar and it means land and country-reward.  He tries to base his idea on the wrong interpretation of the Avesta version Mizhd (which has no etymological relationship to Avesta/Old Persian Ahura Mazda).  But at the same time, 10 pages later, Pourpirar says: ‘’and worst than that is to rely on Avesta, which was recently compiled in India with Gujarat words”.   So Pourpirar relies on a non-liguistic amateurish reading of an Avesta word to misinterpret Old Persian, but later on he wants to show that Avesta was a recent creation of western scholarship!  Where-as linguist today are uniform that had it not been for the Avesta, Old Persian would not have been deciphered and anyone versed in history knows that cuneiform writing was deciphered through Old Persian.   For example we quote the Encyclopedia Encarta:

 

‘’

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563112/Cuneiform.html

The task of deciphering the Persian cuneiform was made easier by existing knowledge of Pahlavi, a later Persian language.

The decipherment itself took well-nigh half a century, and would probably have been impossible altogether had it not been for two scholars who made significant if unwitting contributions to the process by publishing studies which, though not concerned at all with the Persepolis cuneiform inscriptions, proved to be a fundamental aid to the decipherers. One of the scholars was the Frenchman A. H. Anquetil-Duperron, who spent much time in India collecting manuscripts of the Avesta, the sacred book of Zoroastrianism, and learning how to read and interpret Old Persian, the language which it was written.  His relevant publications appeared in 1768 and 1771, and gave those attempting to decipher the Persepolis cuneiform inscriptions some idea of Old Persian, which proved most useful for the decipherment of Class I of the trilinguals once it had been postulated-because of its prominent position in the inscription that it was Old Persian.

 The other scholar was A. I. Silvestre de Sacy, who in 1793 published a translation of the Pahlavi inscriptions found in the environs of Persepolis, which although dating centuries later than the Persepolis cuneiform inscriptions revealed a more or less stereotyped pattern that might be assumed to underlie the earlier monuments as well.

‘’

 

 

Another example of Pourpirar’s revisionism.

 

http://commenting.blogfa.com/?blogid=naria&postid=307&timezone=12642

 

آقای سالح. سلسله ی هخامنشی از یک نظر به سلسله ی پهلوی در زمان ما شبیه است، از داریوش اول آغاز و به فرزندش خشایارشا ختم می شود. در اسناد موجود هخامنشی، مثلا در مجموعه ی کتیبه ها، چنان که با هیچ سال شماری آشنا نباشند، هرگز به تاریخ گذاری مسلسل برنخورده ایم. بنا بر این کشف این که مثلا خشایارشا در چند سال قبل از مسیح سلطنت اش را آغاز کرده ناممکن است. احتمالا حدس های کنونی در باب سال ظهور و سقوط سلاطین هخامنشی را با اسطرلاب تعیین کرده اند.

 

Here Pourpirar is saying that the Achaemenids are like the Pahlavids of our time.  They start with Darius I and their dynasty is ended by his son Xerxes.  There was no Achaemenid Kings after this.

 

A recent and funny theory proposed by Pourpirar is that Salman Al-Farsi, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HP) and Mazdak, the reformer of Zoroastrian religion are creation of Jews. 

 

http://mr-torki.blogfa.com/post-66.aspx

         

In his book, Poli bar Gozashteh (A bridge to the past), the 3rd volume, Pourpirar writes:

 

 

اينك به وظيفه تبعيت از حقيقت و خرد و نيز به قصد انسداد اين راه به ظاهر بازگشوده و هموار كرده يهود كه به نيت ايجاد شكافي وسيع تر در شرق ميانه، در اين گرماگرم نبرد يهود و مسلمانان، به تامل در بنيان باورهاي ديرين پرداخته ام و مقصدم هجوم به دو بت سنگي ايراني است كه يكي را از پيش و ديگري از پس اسلام در راه مسلماني ايرانيان غلطانده اند. دو حكيم و مصلح و خردمند دروغين، مزدك و سلمان كه به سعي قلم هايي، اينك بر تارك تاريخ ايران چون دو ابوالهول نشسته اند، سنجش صحت و يا نادرستي اسناد و شناسنامه معرفي اين دو، راه را براي به آزمايش طلبيدن ديگر عناصر پرآوازه اين گونه افسانه ها باز مي كند

 

"اينك به وظيفه تبعيت از حقيقت و خرد و نيز به قصد انسداد اين راه به ظاهر بازگشوده و هموار كرده يهود كه به نيت ايجاد شكافي وسيع تر در شرق ميانه، در اين گرماگرم نبرد يهود و مسلمانان، به تامل در بنيان باورهاي ديرين پرداخته ام و مقصدم هجوم به دو بت سنگي ايراني است كه يكي را از پيش و ديگري از پس اسلام در راه مسلماني ايرانيان غلطانده اند. دو حكيم و مصلح و خردمند دروغين، مزدك و سلمان كه به سعي قلم هايي، اينك بر تارك تاريخ ايران چون دو ابوالهول نشسته اند، سنجش صحت و يا نادرستي اسناد و شناسنامه معرفي اين دو، راه را براي به آزمايش طلبيدن ديگر عناصر پرآوازه اين گونه افسانه ها باز مي كند

 

 

 

 

It would take the author too long to discuss all the wild theories of Pourpirar’s.  But his anti-Persianism, anti-Iranic stance and anti-Semitic stance and the admiration of Alireza Asgharzadeh and other pan-Turkists for him proves that Alireza Asgharzadeh under the cover  of anti-racism is nothing but a pan-Turkism nationalist trying to weaken the Iranian and Persian identity of Iran.  Indeed enough books and articles have already debunked the revisionist theories of Pourpirar although anyone sane would not such a person seriously.  Let alone someone that is trying to publish an academic book but then again Alireza Asgharzadeh is just a lecturer at a university which is a position below assistant Professorship.  Thus perhaps the university he is affiliated with does not care what sort of non-scholarly material is used by their affiliates.

 

About the background of Pourpirar, not too much is certain except that he lacks academic credential in ancient Iranian history and does not have knowledge of any ancient languages of Persia.  What is clear is that his original name was not Naser Pourpirar but Naser Bana-Konnandeh.  He was a former member of the Tudeh party as told in the memoirs of Kiyanoori.

 

 

خاطرات نورالدين كيانوري» (انتشارات روزنامة اطلاعات، تهران، 1382) در صفحات 516 و 517، كيانوري (دبير كل وقت حزب توده)، ناصر بناكننده (پورپيرار) را اينگونه معرفي مي‏كند:

 

ناصر بنا كننده، كه «پورپيرار» امضا مي‏كرد، پس از اخراجش از حزب در سال 1358 به علت خوردن پول حزب و كلاهبرداري از شركايش در انتشارات «نيل» و بالاكشيدن حق التأليف آقاي محمود اعتمادزاده (به آذين)، با نام مستعار «ناريا» به انتشار جزوه‏هايي عليه حزب و بدگويي به شخص من، كه دستور اخراج او را داده بودم، پرداخت.

آشنايي من با بناكننده در آلمان صورت گرفت. او، حدود يك سال پيش از پيروزي انقلاب، به برلين غربي آمد و به ياد ندارم به وسيله چه فردي [؟!] تقاضاي ديدار با ما را كرد. او در اين ديدار ادعا كرد كه با هوشنگ تيزابي همكاري داشته و وسايل چاپي را كه هوشنگ با آن اولين جزوه‏هاي به سوي حزب را منتشر كرده در اختيار هوشنگ گذاشته است. خود او حروفچين چاپخانه بود و بعداً با شراكت دو نفر ديگر يك بنگاه انتشاراتي تأسيس كرده و با كلاهبرداري از همه ثروت قابل ملاحظه‏اي اندوخته بود. او در اين ديدار ادعا كرد كه نقشه‏اي براي ترور شاه دارد. او اين نقشه را چنين شرح داد كه خيال دارد زميني در جاده نياوران ـ كه شاه معمولاً از آنجا با اتومبيل به كاخ ييلاقي‏اش مي‏رود ـ خريداري كند و از آن زمين نقبي تا وسط خيابان حفر كند و در آنجا بمب نيرومندي كار بگذارد و هنگام عبور اتومبيل شاه از آن نقطه بمب را منفجر كند. او نظر مرا درباره اين طرح خواست. اولين نتيجه‏گيري من درباره او اين بود كه يا ديوانه است و يا پرووكاتور. غير عملي بودن اين طرح را توضيح دادم و گفتم كه به جاي اين نقشه‏هاي غير عملي بهتر است كه با امكاناتش به تكثير نشريات حزب در ايران بپردازد. به اين ترتيب، اولين ديدار و آشنايي ما به پايان رسيد.

پس از بازگشت به ايران و آغاز فعاليت حزب، [ پس از پيروزي انقلاب اسلامي ] بناكننده به دفتر حزب آمد و حاضر شد چاپ روزنامه مردم را در برابر پرداخت هزينه آن عهده‏دار شود. اين كار به او محول شد. پس از چندي شعبه انتشارات حزب، كه مسئول آن محمد پورهرمزان بود، به من گزارش داد كه با تحقيق روشن شده كه صورت هزينه چاپ روزنامه و كتب، كه بناكننده ارائه مي‏دهد، بسيار بيش از نرخ عادي است. به همين علت پورهرمزان خواست كه از دادن انتشارات حزب به او خودداري كنم. من موافقت كردم. اين تصميم، بناكننده را سخت عصباني كرد و من اطلاع يافتم كه او به اتاق پورهرمزان ـ در دفتر حزب ـ رفته و به شكل توهين آميزي با او صحبت مي‏كند. من از اتاق خود در طبقه بالا به اتاق پورهرمزان در طبقه پائين رفتم و شاهد برخورد اوباشانه او شدم. بلافاصله مأمورين انتظامات حزب را خواستم و گفتم كه او را از دفتر حزب بيرون كنند و ديگر راه ندهند. عليرغم اين مسئله و عليرغم انتشار جزوات توسط او عليه حزب، آقاي طبري به روابط «دوستانه» و «رفيقانه» خود با اين فرد فاسد ادامه داد و با او مكاتباتي داشت كه بعداً توسط بناكننده مورد سوء استفاده قرار گرفت. ناصر بناكننده پس از مدتي به علت ارتباط با مأمورين سياسي بلغارستان توسط جمهوري اسلامي دستگير و به زندان اوين فرستاده شد . او در دادگاه انقلاب ادعا كرده بود كه هميشه مخالف حزب بوده است! نمي‏دانم به چه مدت محكوم و كي آزاد شد.

 

Partial English translation of Kiyanoori:

 

Naser Bana-Konnandeh, who signed his name as Pourpirar was dismissed from the party (Hezb Tudeh) in 1980 due to stealing the funds of the party and the money of his business partners in the NIL publishing house. Afterwards he started to go against the Hezb and started publishing articles against me.

My acquaintance with Bana-Konnadeh took place in Germany. One year before the revolution, he came to West Berlin and I am not sure which contact it was that set up a meeting between us… In the meeting he said he has a plan for the terror of the Shah. His plan was to buy a piece of land near Niyavaran road, the road where the Shah’s automobile usually traveled on for access to his summer palace. Through this land, he described that he will dig a hole underground, and connect the hole all the way through the middle of the road and place a powerful bomb in the hole and when Shah’s car goes through that exact spot, he will detonate the bomb. Bana-Konnandeh wanted my opinion on this. I thought that he was either crazy or a provocateur. The plan’s non-practical nature was apparent to me and I explained that it was not practical and it would be better for him to publish the manuscripts of the Tudeh party. Thus, through this meeting, we became acquainted.

After coming back to Iran (after the victory of the revolution), Bana-Konnandeh came to the office of the Tudeh party and offered to publish the newspaper titled “Mardom”(People). After a while it became apparent to us that he was overcharging highly for the newspapers and books he is publishing on the parties behalf. Thus Pur-Hormozan, head of publication branch of Tudeh Party , conferred with me and it was agreed that we should not use the services of Bana-Konnandeh anymore. This decision made Bana-Konnandeh extremely angry and I heared a report that he went to the office of Pur-Hormozan in the party’s headquarters and had insulted him severely. I went upstairs to Pur-Hormozan’s room and saw at first hand the uncivil manner of Bana-Konanndeh. Immediately I called upon the party’s security member and ordered that Bana-Konnandeh is not to be allowed anymore in the headquarters of the party. Despite this matter and despite his reaction, which he started to publish against the party, Ehsan Tabari (a high ranking communist member) continued his relationship with this corrupt person and wrote letters to Bana-Konnandeh. The letters were used later on by Bana-Konnandeh to his advantage in order pursue his point of view. Bana-Konnandeh after a while later was arrested by the Islamic Republic for contacting political leaders of Bulgaria and was sent to Evin prison. In the revolutionary court, he claimed that he was against Tudeh since the beginning! I am not sure how long he was jailed and when he was released.

 

 

For responses to Pourpirar, one can refer to:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/main.htm

 

The following books have been published in response to Pourpirar's historic revisionism:

 

*The glorious Millenaries  هزاره های پرشکوه  by Dariush Ahmadi

(داریوش احمدی ، هزاره های پرشکوه، موسسه فرهنگی انتشاراتی گرگان، خيابان انقلاب، خيابان فلسطين جنوبى، مؤسسه‌ى فرهنگى - انتشاراتى فروهر، تلفن 66462704)D. Ahmadi, Hezarehaye Por Shokooh,  Foruhar Publishing House, 2007 

 

See also the book's weblog: http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/main.htm

 

*Twelve centuries of splendor دوازده قرن شوه by Amir Limiai and Dariush Ahmadi  (

امير نعمتي ليمايي - داريوش احمد، دوازده قرن شکوه، انتشارات اميد مهر، 1383، 120 صفحه، مركز پخش كتاب: تهران، خيابان انقلاب، خيابان فخررازي ( روبه‌روي دانشگاه تهران )، نبش فاتحي داريان، انتشارات معین)

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Iran/shokoohdavazdahbakhshyek.htm

 

 

*Cyrus and the Bible by Houshang Sadeghi

 

( کورش و بابل   هوشنگ صادقی - کوروش و بابل، موسسه انتشارات نگاه، فروشگاه: تهران- خ 12 فروردین، شماره 21، طبقه همکف، تلفن 66480379)

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/kurushbabolsadeghi.htm

 

*The Veracity of ancient Persian and Arya  اعتبار باستان شناختی آریا و پارس by Mohammad *Taqi 'Ataii and Ali Akbar Vahdati <ref>محمد تقي عطايي و علي اكبر وحدتي، اعتبار باستان شناختي آريا و پارس، شيرازه

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Iran/etebaarbaastaanshenaasi.htm

 

*The glorious Millenaries: an website with collection of articles in response to Pourpirar http://ariya.blogsky.com

 

It should be noted that Javad Heyat, Sadiq Mohammad Zadeh and many other pan-Turkists have heavily praised Pourpirars theories and given it space in their pan-Turkist journals (Varliq : An Azeri magazine published freely in Iran showing Azeri Turkic is not banned as pan-Turkists claim).  The humorous thing is that no one really takes Pourpirar seriously except pan-Turkists and the reason pan-Turkists take Pourpirar seriously is due to the fact that they simply can not bear the creativity and dynamasim of Iranian civilization and its contribution to humanity.

 

Brenda Shaffer

 

Brenda Shaffer maintains a webpage here:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/person.cfm?item_id=312

 

 

 

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/images/Brenda_Shaffer.jpg

According to her website:’’ Brenda Shaffer is a post-doctoral fellow at the International Security Program and the former Research Director of the Caspian Studies Project at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Dr. Shaffer's main research interests include political, social, and security trends in the Caucasus and Central Asia, with emphasis on the Republic of Azerbaijan; the Azerbaijani minority in Iran; ethnic politics in Iran; Iranian nuclear program and security policy; Russian-Iranian relations; Iranian foreign policy, with emphasis on Iran’s policy in Central Asia and the Caucasus; U.S.–Iranian relations; energy and politics, especially in the Caspian region, and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. She is also interested in the impact of newly established ethnic-based states on co-ethnics beyond those states' borders as well as the effect on collective identity of political borders that divide co-ethnics.  Dr. Shaffer received her Ph.D. from  Tel Aviv University for her work on "The Formation of Azerbaijani Collective Identity: In Light of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Soviet Breakup." She has worked for a number of years as a researcher and policy analyst for the Government of Israel and reads a number of languages, including Turkish, Russian, Azerbaijani, and Hebrew. She has served in the Israel Defense Forces. Dr. Shaffer has published in a number of scholarly journals and newspapers, including and an article in Current History entitled, “Is there a Muslim Foreign Policy?” and “Iran at the Nuclear Threshold,” (Arms Control Today   November 2003). Dr. Shaffer's op-ends have appeared in a number of newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, and the Boston Globe. She is the author of the books: Partners in Need: The Strategic Relationship of Russia and Iran (the Washington Institute for Near East Policy) and Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity (MIT Press, 2002). Dr. Shaffer is also the editor of  Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy (MIT Press, 2006). She frequently is consulted by government for a and international organizations on policy in the Caspian region.”

From the above it becomes apparent that Brenda Shaffer does not know Persian or Arabic, the main two languages of the region.  Specially with regards to classical history and culture, she has no access to primary sources since she lacks the necessary linguistic background.  Indeed, virtually almost all the primary sources about the history of Azerbaijan before the 20th century are in Persian and Arabic.  Perhaps if she had witnessed Naser Pourpirar’s writing at first hand, she would not have been smiling like the above picture.

 

It also becomes apparent that she is a policy analyst for the government of Israel and has served in the Israeli military.  This author does not involve himself with modern politics, but it does not take a genius to note that the government of Israel and the Islamic republic of Iran are not exactly best of friends, although this is not the case for the Jewish and Iranian people.  Indeed Persian Jews are one of the oldest Jewish communities and even the Jews of the caucus, including those of the modern day republic of Azerbaijan, speak a Persian dialect called Tati. 

 

But due to the political differences between Iran and Israel, it would be natural for people like Brenda Shaffer to make the short term mistake of supporting the anti-Semitic and anti-Iranian writings of Pourpirar and Asgharzadeh and supporting separatist tendencies in Iran.  Heck it doesn’t matter for Brenda Shaffer if Pourpirar is anti-Semite or Asgharzadeh has clear pan-Turkism tendencies (as to be demonstrated later in this article), what matters is that all three of them will work together to weaken the national identity of Iran.   Also it is interesting that Alireza Asgharzadeh constantly belittles colonialism where as Brenda Shaffer fits exactly into the definition of neocons.  And Pourpirar believes everything evil is due to Jews.  I guess when it comes to anti-Iranism, we have what is called “strange bed fellows”.

 

Now going back to Brenda Shaffer.  Some of her recent articles clearly show that she is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program,  the rest of the stuff like pan-Turkism and Pourpirar etc.. are just means and tools to put pressure on the Iranian government.

 

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication_list_by_person.cfm?item_id=312

 

For example:

Shaffer, Brenda. "Leaning on Iran Not to Make Nukes: A Test for the World." The International Herald Tribune (22 September 2003).

 

Shaffer, Brenda. "U.S. Policy in the South Caucasus in the Second George W. Bush Administration." Proceedings of the International Conference on the Prospects for Cooperation and Stability in the Caucasus. Conference Paper, Istanbul: Foundation for Middle East and Balkan Studies, 1 March 2005.

 

Shaffer, Brenda. "If Iran is Not Checked, Nuclear Terror is Next: America Needs a Plan." The International Herald Tribune (9 August 2004).

 

Any reader can judge that Brenda Shaffer does not care about Iranians and Azerbaijani Iranians.  But to sow the seed of ethnic discord through the likes of Alireza Asgharzadeh is a strategy to weaken Iran and thus in this era, Pourpirar, Asgharzadeh and Shaffer are united in their hatred for Iran and Iranians.  For Brenda Shaffer, it is a way to put pressure on the Iranian identity and hence the Iranian government.  We will discuss foreign interference in fomenting ethnic discord in a later section of this article.

 

According to the prestigious Harpers Magazine, in the article “Academics for Hire” by Ken Silverstein,  May 30, 2006.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/05/sb-followup-starr-2006-05-30-29929

 ‘’ In defending his own program Starr wrote in one email, “fyi: Harvard's Caspian Studies Program receives a lot of money from both the oil companies and from some of the governments.” I share Starr's concerns here, and since I briefly mentioned Harvard in my original story, and since several readers asked for more details, let me provide it here. As I had previously reported, the Caspian Studies Program (CSP) was launched in 1999 with a $1 million grant from the United States‒Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC) and a consortium of companies led by ExxonMobil and Chevron. The program's other funders include Amerada Hess Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Unocal, and Glencore International.

The website of the USACC describes the Caspian Studies Program as a “joint venture” that unites Harvard's “world-renowned faculty and intellectual resources with the pragmatic talents, experience and potential of the USACC members. The Program is a unique opportunity to raise the profile of the Caspian region in the United States [and] increase the understanding of the U.S. policymaking and business communities of the region's problems.”

CSP offers “executive training programs for Azerbaijani leaders,” which bestows upon its students the title of USACC Fellows. USACC, says the website, “is proud to note that a number of young and highly-skilled Azerbaijanis have been able to benefit from these fellowships and emerge as new leaders of their country.” I'd wager that, upon entering the government, the Fellows are only too happy to help out the oil companies and other corporations that paid for their education. The CSP issues Policy Briefs, and one of its first was “Energy Security: How Valuable is Caspian Oil?” Very valuable, as it turns out, and thus, the brief suggests, the United States should make nice with Caspian governments.

Harvard's program is led by Brenda Shaffer, who is so eager to back regimes in the region that she makes Starr look like a dissident. A 2001 brief she wrote, “U.S. Policy toward the Caspian Region: Recommendations for the Bush Administration,” commended Bush for “intensified U.S. activity in the region, and the recognition of the importance of the area to the pursuit of U.S. national interests.” Shaffer has also called on Congress to overturn Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, which was passed in 1992 and bars direct aid to the Azeri government. The law has not yet been repealed, but the Bush Administration has been waiving it since 2002, as a payoff for Azeri support in the “war on terrorism.”

The American historian Ralph E. Luker echoes Silversteins article, saying:

“Silverstein's second article also implicates Harvard historian Brenda Shaffer, who is research director of the University's Caspian Studies Program, in similar apologias. These programs appear to be largely funded by regional regimes, American oil and industrial investors in the region, and right-wing foundations in the United States.”( http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/25951.html History News Network)

 

 

Brenda Shaffer’s book:’’  Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity” and her plagiarism has been covered in the reviews by Dr. Touraj Atabaki and Dr. Evan Siegel (who she thanks in the introduction of her book, but what is interesting is that Professor. Siegel wrote one of the most critical and harshest reviews after the book was published).  Here are the addresses for the reviews:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/atoor/bookreviewsiegel.htm

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/atoor/atabakishaffer.pdf

 

Evan Siegel strongly criticizes the book for being full of mistakes; inaccuracies; misinterpretation and misquoting sources and the book's failure to provide documentations to support Shaffer’s observations.   For example he writes: ‘’ Shaffer portrays the 1920 revolt of Sheikh Mohammad Khiabani along the lines of the scholarship emanating from Caucasian Azerbaijani academia, although with less control of the facts. For instance, she claims that the sheikh’s journal, Tajaddod, was bilingual, when it was actually in Persian only.  She mentions that the sheikh’s party had a branch in Azerbaijan, but does not mention its paper’s full title (which is mentioned in the sources she uses)—“Azerbaijani, an Inseparable Part of Iran.”  Along the same lines, the author mentions that the sheikh changed the name of the province he now ran to Azadestan, but neglects to provide the context that both friend and foe give: this change was adopted because the Caucasian Azerbaijanis declared their republic to be the republic of Azerbaijan, and the sheikh was thereby repudiating their northern neighbor’s invitation to join them.  There is no record that “Khiabani decreed the right to use the Azerbaijani language in the province.   Such a decree would have been met with incomprehension, since the language had never been banned.’’

 

Evan Siegel concludes: "Brethren and Borders is a highly political book on an emotional subject which needs careful, dispassionate analysis. Its chapters on the historical background is full of inaccuracies. Its chapters on current events and trends include a few interesting observations which don’t appear in the literature, but most of it is readily available elsewhere."

 

Recently I read an article where she considered Farhand from Khusraw o Shirin of Persian romance (and it is originally a Persian Sassanid romance not Turkish) as an Azeri!  Everyone knows Farhad was from Kermanshah and at that time, Azeri ethnic group was not formed today.  This example is sufficient to show the depth of her lack of knowledge with regards to Iran.  Thus as the Harper magazine accurately describes it, Brenda Shaffer is a scholar for higher who does not care about scholarly integrity.  So Brenda Shaffer as shown is paid and financed by foreign governments.  Interestingly enough, pan-Turkists have even distorted the works of Brenda Shaffer when translating her book into Persian:

 

دروغ اندر دروغ- تحریف  آمار برندا شیفر (مدافع پان ترکیستها در غرب) به قلم خود پان ترکیستهای نابکار 

 

Interestingly enough, recently in a forum I saw a report about another writer.  Charles van der Leeuw, who wrote the ''Azerbaijan: A Quest for Identity'' This work is a propaganda piece which is considered nothing more than propoganda. It received harsh reviews. A review for example: ''This combination of carelessness and inaccuracy is characteristic of the book as a whole...'' the review also traces mistakes that some of which any newbie not even well versed in the subject will find and trace. The reviewer after citing some of those writes: ''His interpretation resembles the one developped by Azerbaijani nationalists in the Soviet Era:...'' (Muriel Atkin, Russian Review, Vol. 60, No. 4. (Oct., 2001) p. 663-62.)

 

Here another review on his other work titled : Storm over the Caucasus: In the Wake of Independence. The reviewer writes: ''Rather than filling any void in the study of the Caucasus, van der Leeuw has managed to produce one of the poorest books ever written on the region in recent years...'' ''Van der Leeuw's apparent lack of Khnowledge about existing sources is one possible explanation for the numerous flaws found in his volume... '' (Hovann Simonian, Central Asia Surver (2000), 19(2) 297-303.)

 

Here, another review: ''Merely to lost the technical (to say nothing of the much more crucial factual) mistakes occuring here would take up the space normally allotted to a whole review, and so all I can do is suggest a flavour of what is in store for the reader.'' (George Hewitt, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 62, No. 3. (1999), pp. 593-594).

 

He lived in Baku since 1992 supporting the pipeline construction, his work: Oil and Gas in the Caucasus & Caspian: A History, Palgrave Macmillan (September 2, 2000) is a propaganda work.  Thus Shaffer and van der Leeuw are financed by powerful oil lobbies and governments and they are not unbiased academic scholars.

 

Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi

 

A pan-Turkist revisionist quoted by Alireza Asgharzadeh is Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi.  Some of the very absurd but non-ingenious theories of Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi, published in his book are discussed in this section.  The reason the theories are non-ingenious is that such theories have been put forth by pan-Turkists of Turkey since the advent of Ataturkism.

 

 

The political background of Zehtabi is not 100% clear although like Brenda Shaffer and Pourpirar, he comes from a deeply rooted ideological-political background. The connections with political pan-Turkism is undeniable.  According to an Iranian newspaper:

 

قابل ذکر است که محمود پناهیان(یکی از عضو بلند پایه فرقه تجزیه طلب دموکراسی) پس از فرار به شوروی ، در سالهای دهه 1350 شمسی در یک ماموریت از باکو به بغداد اعزام شد و در آنجا ضمن همکاری با رژیم بعث عراق به تاسیس یک گروه سیاسی به نام «جبهه ملی خلقهای ایران» دست زد و شعبه هایی از ان به تبلیغ قوم گرایی در آذربایجان، کردستان ، بلوچستان و خوزستان ایران پرداخت. مدتی بعد، محمد تقی زهتابی چهره شناخته شده پان ترکیست (که در شاخه جوانان فرقه دموکرات فعالیت داشت)، به پناهیان پیوست و در بغداد رادیوی گروه او به تبلیغ اندیشه های پان ترکی پرداخت و در دانشگاه بغداد نیز تدریس کرد. وی پس از سقوط شاه به ایران بازگشت و به ترویج افکار پان ترکی در تبریز مشغول شد، و همو بود که با تکیه بر نوشته های پان ترکی و تاریخ نگاری تخیلی محافل پان ترکی باکو و استانبول-انکارا، و سر هم بندی حوادث پراکنده تاریخی و تحریف انها تلاش کرد و کتابی به نام «تاریخ باستان ترکهای ایران» را از چرندیات پان ترکی ترکیه رونويسي كرد، که اصولا آذربایجان را از حوزه تمدن ایران خارج می کرد و به جهانی پان ترکی متصل می ساخت.

 

 

That is Zehtabi was part of the youth organization of the Stalin created Ferqeh party of Pishevari (more on Ferqeh will be discussed in this article).  He was either exiled from Baku for his pan-Turkism activities to Baghdad or was sent there for special reasons.  He worked with the Ba’athist regime in Baghdad under the organization “Jebhe Melli Khalgh-haayeh Iran” (The united front of Iranian peoples) which worked to increase ethnicism in Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Baluchistan and Khuzestan.  He joined Mahmud Panahiyan (a high member of Ferqeh in Baghdad) and worked in the radio program of the group, spreading pan-Turkism and also started teaching in Baghdad.  After the fall of the Shah, he moved to Tabriz and started spreading pan-Turkism political and historical revisionist.  Either way, Zehtabi’s academic background is obscure and his political background is shadowy.

 

According to Alireza Asgharzadeh, Zehtabi is ’’A well-respected Azeri scholar Mohammed Taqi Zehtabi has published a two-volume history book that traces the indigenous history of Iranian Turks well over 6, 000 years back, challenging thus the legitimacy of the dominant group's denial of indigenous history for the Turks in Iran’’(pg 177).    It is not clear where the mark “well-respected” came from, but if it means well-respected in modern academia and scholarship, the claim is certainly not true.  The first part about the claims of 6000 years backs of Turkish history in Iranian Azerbaijan is easily dismissed by reliable scholars and sources.  

 

For example Professor Tadsuez Swietchowski (who is fairly Pro-Azerbaijani source) states:

 

What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran.  From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran.  According to the most widely accepted etymology, the name “Azerbaijan” is derived from Atropates, the name of a Persian satrap of the late fourth century b.c. Another theory traces the origin of the name to the Persian word azar (”fire”‘) - hence Azerbaijan, “the Land of Fire”, because of Zoroastrian temples, with their fires fueled by plentiful supplies of oil.

 

Azerbaijan maintained its national character after its conquest by the Arabs in the mid-seventh century a.d. and its subsequent conversion to Islam. At this time it became a province in the early Muslim empire. Only in the 11th century, when Oghuz Turkic tribes under the Seljuk dynasty entered the country, did Azerbaijan acquire a significant number of Turkic inhabitants. The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia. After the Mongol invasions in the 13th century, Azerbaijan became a part of the empire of Hulagu and his successors, the Il-Khans. In the 15th century it passed under the rule of the Turkmens who founded the rival Qara Qoyunlu (Black Sheep) and Aq Qoyunlu (White Sheep) confederations. Concurrently, the native Azerbaijani state of the Shirvan-Shahs flourished.

(Swietochowski, Tadeusz, AZERBAIJAN, REPUBLIC OF,., Vol. 3, Colliers Encyclopedia CD-ROM, 02-28-1996)

 

 

 

Professor Vladimir Minorsky also states:

 

‘’ In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the G̲h̲uzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seldjukids occupied Adharbayjan.  In consequence, the Iranian population of Adharbayjan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone.”

(Minorsky, V.; Minorsky, V. "Ad̲h̲arbayd̲j̲an " Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007.)

 

 

Professor Peter Golden who has written the most comprehensive book on Turkic people, in his book (An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992)).  Professor Golden confirms that the Medes were Iranians and Iranian languages like Talyshi/Tati speakers are being absorbed into Turkish speakers.  Considering the Turkic penetration in the caucus and the Turkification of Iranian Azerbaijan, Professor Golden states in pg 386 of his book:

 

Turkic penetration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol(Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan(Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran(derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

 

 

 

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:

“Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined. The few researches undertaken (Planhol, 1960) demonstrate the indisputable predominance of Iranian tradition in agricultural techniques (irrigation, rotation systems, terraced cultivation) and in several settlement traits (winter troglodytism of people and livestock, evident in the widespread underground stables). The large villages of Iranian peasants in the irrigated valleys have worked as points for crystallization of the newcomers even in the course of linguistic transformation; these places have preserved their sites and transmitted their knowledge. The toponyms, with more than half of the place names of Iranian origin in some areas, such as the Sahand, a huge volcanic massif south of Tabriz, or the Qara Dagh, near the border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness to this continuity. The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants.”

 

 

It is interesting to note that the Oghuz Turks who turkified Azerbaijan linguistically were not themselves pure Turks according to Mahmud Kasghari.

Turkology-expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):

"... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kâshghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ..."

 

N. Light further explains:

"... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ..."

 

Thus Alireza Asgharzadeh simply ignores well established academics and relies on a revisionists like those of Zehtabi and Pourpirar  to sketch the history of Iran.  The reason is that the recorded history of Iranian Azerbaijan had nothing to do with Turkic groups until the Oghuz tribes (although it should be mentioned that Babak Khorramdin fought against Turkish soldiers of the Abbassid Caliphas who were mercenaries and slaves from central Asia and Khazaria).  Even after the influx of Oghuz tribes, Turkification was not completed until the mid Safavid times.  For example Evliya Chelebi, the Ottoman traveler records that the Women of Maragheh speak Pahlavi.  The name Azerbaijan, itself going back to the Persian satrap Atropates is unrelated to the Turkic languages.

 

Interestingly enough, Zehtabi’s thesis are the anti-thesis of that of Pourpirar, since Pourpirar believes there was no living in creature in Iran after Purim till the beginning of Islam and the Sassanids, Parthians, Achaemenid dynasties are forgeries.  Where-as Zehtabi in a funny attempt at historical revisionism attempts to present the Parthians, Scythians, Medes, Elamites, Sumerians, Manneans, Lulubis, Gutis, Urartuians.. as Turks.

 

 

Let examine some of the claims of Zehtabi himself.  Zehtabi’s main source is actually the book about “Medes” from I.M. Diakonoff and also 19th century scholarship re-manufactured.    The same sort of 19th century sort of scholarship that Alireza Asgharzadeh condemns in his book.  Zehtabi not only falsifies facts in his book, but he also distorts the words of I.M. Diakonoff which he relies heavily on. 

 

 

The term ''Turanian'' was formerly used by European especially in Germany, Hungary, Slovak ethnologists, linguistics and romantics to designate populations speaking non-Indo-European, non-Semitic and non-Hamitic languages. (See: Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language: Linguistics, Philology, Etymology , pg 144) and specially speakers of Altaic, Uralic and Dravidian languages.  Marx Muller classified the Turanian language family into different sub-branches.  The Northern or Ural-Altaic division branch compromised Tungusic, Mongolic, Turkic, Samoiedic, and Finnic.  The Southern branch consisted of Dravidian languages like Tamil, Malay and other Dravidian languages.  The languages of the Caucus (Georgian, Chechen, Lezgin..) were classified as the ''scattered languages of the Turanian family”.  Muller also began to muse whether Chinese belonged to the Northern branch or Southern branch.   (See: George “van” Driem, Handbuch Der Orientalistik, Brill Academic Publishers, 2001.  pp 335-336).

 

 

The main relationship between Dravidian, Uralic and Altaic languages are basically poorly defined as typological.  According to Encyclopedia Britannica: ''Language families, as conceived in the historical study of languages, should not be confused with the quite separate classifications of languages by reference to their sharing certain predominant features of grammatical structure.''("language." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 27 Apr. 2007)

 

Today languages are classified based on the method of comparative linguistics rather than their typological features.  According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Max's Muller proposal ''efforts were most successful in the case of the Semites, whose affinities are easy to demonstrate, and probably least successful in the case of the Turanian peoples, whose early origins are hypothetical''(religions, classification of." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  Today the linguistic usage of the word Turanian is not used in the scholarly community to denote classification of language families. The relationship between Uralic and Altaic, whose speakers were also designated as part of the Turanian people in 19th century European literature is also disregarded today.

 

Pan-Turkists like Zehtabi use the wrong term “Agglutinative language ethnic groups”(Qowmhaayeh Eltesaghi Zaban)  in order to rewrite Turkic history.  They do not have the necessarily linguistic background to understand what these terms actually mean. 

Agglutinative language is a language that uses agglutination extensively: most words are formed by joining morphemes together. This term was introduced by Wilhelm von Humboldt in 1836 to classify languages from a morphological point of view.  The term is not used to denote language family let alone ethnic groups.  For example the following languages all have agglutinating features (some less and some more):

 

1)      Uralic

2)      Altaic

3)      Dravidian

4)      Aborigine languages of Australia

5)      Basque language

6)      African languages like Bantu

7)      South, North West, North East Caucasian languages

8)      North American languages including Nahuatl, Salish..

9)      South American native languages

 

 

 

According to the linguistic definition:

‘’Agglutinative is sometimes used as a synonym for synthetic, although it technically is not. When used in this way, the word embraces fusional languages and inflected languages in general. The distinction between an agglutinative and a fusional language is often not sharp. Rather, one should think of these as two ends of a continuum, with various languages falling more toward one end or the other. In fact, a synthetic language may present agglutinative features in its open lexicon but not in its case system: for example, German, Dutch.’’

 

For example even Indo-European languages show agglutinating features. 

 

In English we have many words which agglutinate (extend) to form other words.  If we take the simple word - argue - then we can agglutinate it to - argument - by sticking on a -ment suffix.  We can further agglutinate this word with other suffixes viz.: -ative giving argumentative - and even further to - argumentatively by adding a further -ly suffix.
For example in Persian one can make the long word: نوکاروارسراداران

No(New)+Kar+Van (Caravan) Sara(Place) Dar (holder)+an (plural).

 

Thus pan-turkist take one small feature in many languages and claim that these languages are Turkic.

 

This method of falsifying language families has been discussed in the following Persian Article:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/buqalamoonsumeri.htm

 

and in the article:

On the Idea of Sumerian-Uralic-Altaic Affinities (CA 1973)

 

Which was written as a response to a Hungarian nationalist by professional linguists.  It is not bad to present the response of Professional linguist to the likes of Zehtabi.

 

Professor Mridula Adenwala Durbin:

“The division of languages into agglutinating and inflectional refers to only one segment of the total structure of language, namely morphology. Compar­able morphology between two languages is not necessarily an indicator of their genetic affiliation”

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 216) 

Professor William H. Jacobsen

“The typological characteristic of being agglutinative, from which the argument starts, is so poorly defined as to be of little significance, as one can immediately see from its application to Caucasian languages as well as to Uralic and Altaic languages. The general structure of Sumerian is really quite different from that of Uralic in many ways. For example, in Uralic languages verb in­flection   is   exclusively   by   suffixes, whereas in Sumerian the verb complex contains, in addition to suffixes, prefixes of several different position classes, expressing pronoun objects of various kinds, as well as modal and lexical concepts. The stem in Sumerian, but not Uralic, may be reduplicated to express such categories as plurality and and intensity. In any case, typological features are at best heuristic, not pro­batory of distant relationships.

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 218)

 

Professor Johann Knobloch: 

“For example, the Indo-European language, Tocharian, is agglutinative like Sumerian and Hun­garian; yet no one would relate Tocharian with these two languages. “

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 219)

 

 

Professor W.P. Lehman:

“One of the clearest results of historical linguistic studies is the finding that genetic relationships have only minor correlations with typological characteristics. For example, the Indo-European language, Tocharian, is agglutinative like Sumerian and Hun­garian; yet no one would relate Tocharian with these two languages. If CA wants to present ideas on historical linguistics for discussion, it might review the generally held conclusions about possible correlations between genetic relationships and typological charac­terizations rather than this very dubious statement.”

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 219)

 

Professor Joe E. Piece:

 “The term "agglutinative" is only one of a large number of typological labels that can be applied to languages. The notion goes back at least to Friedrich and August von Schlegel (1808, 1818, cited repeatedly in Home 1966), and it can­not be considered an absolute term, but only a relative one. Presumably echoes of this 19th-century typology simply continue to appear in brief popular treatments of the Sumerian language such as those mentioned”

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 221)

 

Professor H.K. J. Cowan:

“As to the former: terms like "ag­glutinative, " "isolating," and "flexional" are rather dubious and do not indicate any genetic relationship. Finnish, for instance, is often regarded as typically "agglutinative, " but here we find what may be regarded as "flexional" forms, such as vesi 'water' (nominative) , but vetta (partitive) and veden (genitive); sido-n 'I bind,' sido-t 'thou bindest,' sito-o 'he binds,' etc. (Jespersen 1950: 79). Chinese is often thought to be typically "isolating," bu tKarlgren (1920) has shown that Proto-Chinese was "flexional." English, "flexional" by origin, seems on its way to "isolation." Therefore, even if we accept the terms as justified for typological classification they say nothing about genetic relation­ship”

(Comments: Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 1971) pg 222)

Professor Istvan Fodor:

“The similarity of the grammatical structure of the languages compared has no relevance at all for a common origin if the congnateness of the contrasted grammatical morphemes (of similar or different function) cannot be shown by stable sound laws.  Modern English, with its many monosyllabic roots and little formal modification is, is more like Modern Chinese(which was not always monosyllabic) with regards to some structural features than it is like Anglo-Saxon or Latin or Russian.  In any case, major structural linguistic types are not numerous and the 3000 or more languages of the world can be divided into a few groups independently of their origin.  Furthermore, one Sumerologist (Kluge 1921) is that of the opinion that Sumerian cannot be compared structurally with the Finno-Ugric stock, but should instead be compared with Hamitic and many Sudanic languages.  By the way, meinhoff(1914- 1915) made the first observation concerning some Sumerian and African(Bantu and Hamitic) structural and lexical parallels.”(CA vol 17 No. 1  , March 1976)”(Istvan Fodor Current Anthropology, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 115-118)

Professor. Gerard Caluson:

“I have reached as result of many years of study of a good many languages regarding the time-honoured but now discredited trichotomy of agglutinating, flexinal and isolating languages.  It seems to me that these are, at most, stages through which languages may, perhaps must, pass over the centuries, and that they way in which a language is categorized depends primarily on the characteristics which are selected as decisive.  English is now, for example, regarded as an isolating language, but it is conceded that it was earlier a flexional language and that traces of this still survive in the cojungation of verbs.  But if attention is concentrated on such groups of words as “parent, parenthood,” , “man, manly, manliness”, and “rest, restless and restlessness” it is hard to deny it the status of an agglutinating language in the classical sense of the term.”

(Gerard Clauson Current Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct., 1973), pp. 493-495)

 

 

‘’The division of languages into agglutinating and inflectional refers to only one segment of the total structure of language, namely morphology.  Comparing morphology between two languages is not necessarily indicator of their genetic affiliations.  For example African languages like Bantu, Swahili, Dravidian languages like Tamil, Malay, Aboriginal Australian languages, the language of native Americans, the Caucasian languages like Georgian, Laz, Chchen, the Indo-European language like Tocharian as well as to a lesser extent German, Uralic and Altaic languages and Polynesian languages  are all agglutinating, but they are placed in different language groups.   For example, the Indo-European language, Tocharian, is agglutinative like Sumerian and Hungarian, yet no one would relate Tocharian with these two languages.’’

 

‘’ I have reached as result of many years of study of a good many languages regarding the time-honored but now discredited trichotomy of agglutinating, flexional and isolating languages.  It seems to me that these are, at most, stages through which languages may, perhaps must, pass over the centuries, and that they way in which a language is categorized depends primarily on the characteristics which are selected as decisive.  English is now, for example, regarded as an isolating language, but it is conceded that it was earlier a flexional language and that traces of this still survive in the conjugation of verbs.  But if attention is concentrated on such groups of words as “parent, parenthood,” , “man, manly, manliness”, and “rest, restless and restlessness” it is hard to deny it the status of an agglutinating language in the classical sense of the term.”

 

‘’ The typological characteristic of being agglutinative, from which the argument stats, is so poorly defined as to be of little significance, as one can immediately see from its application to Caucasian languages as well as to Uralic and Altaic languages.  Sumerian is really quite different from that of Uralic in many ways.  For example, in the Uralic

Languages verb inflection is exclusively by means of suffixes, whereas in Sumerian the verb complex containing, in addition to suffixes, prefixes of several different position classes, expressing pronoun objects of various kinds, as well as modal and lexical concepts.  In any case, typological features are at best heuristic, not probatory of distant

Relationships. (William H. Jacobsen, J.R., Vol 12. No 2)’’

 

 

‘’ The similarity of the grammatical structure of the languages compared has no relevance at all for a common origin if the cognateness of the contrasted grammatical morphemes (of similar or different function) cannot be shown by stable sound laws.  Modern English, with its many monosyllabic roots and little formal modification is, is more like Modern Chinese(which was not always monosyllabic) with regards to some structural features than it is like Anglo-Saxon or Latin or Russian.  In any case, major structural linguistic types are not numerous and the 3000 or more languages of the world can be divided into a few groups independently of their origin.  Furthermore, one Sumerologist (Kluge 1921) is that of the opinion that Sumerian cannot be compared structurally with the Finno-Ugric stock, but should instead be compared with Hamitic and many Sudanic languages.  By the way, meinhoff(1914-1915) made the first observation concerning some Sumerian and African(Bantu and Hamitic) structural and lexical parallels.”(CA vol 17 No. 1  , March 1976)’’

 

Furthermore, Sumerian uses liberally both suffixes and prefixes in its morphology. In this sense, it differs from other Asiatic agglutinative languages like Ural-Altaic (Uralic and Altaic), Dravidian, Japanese and Korean, which use almost exclusively suffixes in the conjugation of the verb and declension of nouns and pronouns.

 

John Hayes, University of California, Berkeley who wrote a recent book titled:

 

 “Sumerian”  2nd printing June 1999, Languages of the World/Materials 68,
LINCOM EUROPA, Paul-Preuss-Str. 25, D-80995 Muenchen, Germany.

In the introduction he says:


”Sumerian has the distinction of being the oldest attested language in
the world. Spoken in the southern part of ancient Mesopotamia, the
Iraq of today, its first texts date to about 3100 BCE. Sumerian died
out as a spoken language about 2000 BCE, but it was studied in the
Mesopotamian school system as a language of high culture for almost
two thousand more years. A language-isolate, Sumerian has no
obvious relatives.  Typologically, Sumerian is quite different from
the Semitic languages which followed it in Mesopotamia. It is
basically SOV, with core grammatical relationships marked by affixes
on the verb, and with adverbial relationships marked by postpositions,
which are cross-referenced by prefixes on the verb. It is split
ergative; the perfect functions on an ergative basis, but the
imperfect on a nominative-accusative basis.  Because Sumerian is an isolate,

 and has been dead for thousands of years, special problems arise in trying to elucidate its
grammar. There are still major challenges in understanding its
morphosyntax, and very little is known about Sumerian at the discourse
level. This volume will describe some of the major questions still to
be resolved.”

 

 

Unlike Turkish, Sumerian is an Split-Ergative language.  Pahlavi (and Miiddle Iranian in general) was split-ergative, like modern Kurdish.  In Middle Iranian (as in Middle Indo-Aryan [and modern Hindi, Punjabi,Rajasthani, Marathi and Sindhi]), the original Indo-European past tenses (imperfect, perfect, aorist) had been abandoned in favour of a construction involving the past participle passive.  For transitive verbs, this means that "I hit him" was replaced by "He (was) hit by me", resulting in an ergative construction, with the object in the direct (nominative) case, and the subject in the indirect case (old genitive in Iranian, old instrumental in Indo-Aryan).

 

Zehtabi’s fallacy is like calling Sumerian language as Kurdish, because Sumerian language shares with Kurdish the split-ergative features.  And then from the split-ergativity feature of Kurdish, calling both Kurds and Sumerians :”Split-ergative ethnic groups”.  As absurd as this would sound, this sort of non-technical and absurd argument is sowed by pan-Turkists and taken seriously by the likes of Alireza Asgharzadeh to distort Irans history! And also falsely and ridiculously attempt to show Turks had 6000 years of history in Iran!  Actually even Sumerians where from about 5000 years ago so I guess in such wild theories so I guess for pan-Turkists Turks are the oldest group in the world.

 

The people claimed by Zehtabi to have been Turks include Scythians, Parthians, Medes, Sumerians, Elamites, Mannaeans, Urartuians, Hurrians and dozens of groups.  It is interesting that Alireza Asgharzadeh also supports these assertions about Medes.  So the case of the Medes needs to be discussed in details.  Some of these groups like Elamite and Sumerian are not classified in the same language family (for example Elamite and Sumerian are both considered language isolates), but yet Zehtabi claims all of them were Turks!

 

 

Many pan-Turkists on the internet too claim that Sumerian and Turkish are related.  They bring examples of faulty wordlists.  For example a pan-Turkism by the name of Polat Kaya has brought a Sumerian-Turkish list:

http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/sumer_turk1of5.html

 

Just examining the first word: “All”.. the author through a series of sound changes believes that the Sumerian word all is related to the Turkish words “Tamam” and “Har Kas” and “Hami”.  The approach has multiple problems, the least of them being that the word Tamam is Arabic and the word “Hars Kas” and “Hami” are Persian.

 

The author Polat Kaya also in another article claims that the words “Genocide, Holocaust, annihilation, cancellation, abrogation, eradication, homicide..” are not Latin words but Turkish words.

http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/cide.html

 

 

Such words lists comparing Sumerian to other modern languages have been brought by other sort of nationalist groups:

 

Sumerian and PIE

 

Sumerian and PIE 2

 

Sumerian and proto-Indo-European Lexical Equivalence - Latvian Comparison 1

 

Sumerian and proto-Indo-European Lexical Equivalence - Latvian Comparison 2

 

Lexical Correspondences between Sumerian and Dravidian

 

Sumerian si-in and Old Tamil cin: A study in the Historical Evolution of the Tamil Verbal System

 

Sumerian :TAMIL  of the First CaGkam

 

Sumerian and Basque

 

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language

 

But are not taken seriously by scholarship. 

 

An example of Zehtabi’s scholarship:

 

http://www.golha.net/urmu/tarix/045.htm?u=Hamed

 

زبان خوزی-ایلامی، نه تنها در قرون اولیهء اسلامی وجود داشته، بلکه حتی امروز نیز متکلمان آن در خوزستان و اطراف شهر شوش که پایتخت ایلامیان بوده است به حیات و بقای خود ادامه میدهند.

 

Translation:

The language of Khuz-Elami, not only did not die out during the first centuries of Islam, but even till today it’s speakers are leaving  near the city of Shusha which was the capital of Elamites!

 

Thus Zehtabi’s false claims that Elamite is not a dead language and its speakers may be found near the city of Shusha.

 

 

Therefore as can be seen, both Zehtabi and Pourpirar have zero reliability and credibility but Alireza Asgharzadeh uses them for the majority of histography in his work.   Also there is nothing ingenious about Zehtabi’s work as he has just recycled pan-Turkism historical revisionism of Turkey.  For example the Turkish pseudo-scholar Tankut in a two volume book much like Zehtabi’s pushes historical revisionism to new levels:

 

‘’ He Turkifies Sumerian, Hittite, reckons the races of the Euphrates and India as

"among the principal races of these (Turkish) yurts."

Alongside Sumerian and Indian inhabitants, the Akkadians, Elamitcs, Anzani, Kassitcs, Carians, Protohittites, Hittites, Mitanni, Hurians, Luwians, Saka,

"...each one of these peoples used a similar language and were Turkish by race."

 As for the great family of Semitic languages it too was Turkish:

"As there is no independent Semitic tongue so there is not an independent Arab language. Each one of these in its turn, from Sumerian and Akkadian... are languages born of ancient Turkish.”( Speros Vryonis, Jr., Turkish State and History
Clio Meets the Gray Wolf , Institute for Balkan Studies; 2nd edition (September 1992), The, pg 85)

 

Even recently, the Turkish cultural minister claimed that the Prophet of Islam was a Turk and the news was posted all over the internet:

 

Former [Turkish] Minister of Culture Namik Kemal Zeybek has claimed that the Prophet Muhammad was a Turk.

Speaking at a conference on “The New World Order and Turkey” held at the Alanya Turkish Hearth, Namik Kemal Zeybek said that the most important nation in the world’s eight thousand years of history are the Turks, and that it was the Turks that taught civilization to humanity.

Claiming that the roots of the Turkish Nation extend back to the Sumerians, Zeybek said that “Our Prophet Muhammad’s origins also go back to the Sumerians. Consequently, the Prophet Muhammad was also a Turk.”

 

Medes

 

Zehtabi through the manipulation of I.M. Diakonoff’s work tries to prove that the Medes were actually Turkic speakers.  This position is also taken up by Alireza Asgharzadeh.  But Diakonoff is very clear that the Medes were Aryans.

 

«تنها مورد استعمال مجاز اصطلاح آريايي درباره اقوامي است كه در ازمنه باستاني خود، خويشتن را آريا مي ناميدند. هنديان[12] و ايرانيان (پارسيان)[13] و مادها[14] و اسكيت ها[15] و آلان ها[16] و اقوام ايراني زبان آسياي[17] ميانه خود را آريا مي خواندند»

(ا. م. دياكونوف: «تاريخ ماد»، ترجمه كريم كشاورز، انتشارات علمي و فرهنگي، 1380، ص 142، سطرهاي 5 تا 9).

 

Translation:

 

The only correct usage of the term Aryan is for ancient groups that called themselves Aryans.  Indians, Iranians (Persians), Medes, Scythians, Alans and other Iranian groups of Central Asia (Diakonoff then gives reference to Parthians) called themselves Aryans.

 

It does not get clearer than this, yet Zehtabi claims Medes, Scythians, Parthians (see the same page of Diaknoff where Aryan Parthian names are discussed)  are Turks.

 

Professor. Diakonoff gives a background on his writing of the book of Media and he clearly states as he always had maintained that the Medes were Iranians.

 

http://www.srcc.msu.su/uni-persona/site/ind_cont.htm

 

I.M. Dyakonoff. (1915- 1999)

Publisher: «إâًîïهéٌêèé نîى» (European House), Sankt Petersburg, Russia, 1995

700 copies

ISBN – n/a

 

The book of memoirs

 

Last Chapter (After the war)
pp 730 - 731 

Our faculty at the University, as I already mentioned, was closed "for Zionism". There was only one position left open (“History of the Ancient East") which and I have conceded to Lipin, not knowing for sure then, that he was an (secret service - AB) informer, and was responsible for death of lovely and kind Nika Erschovich. But Hermitage salary alone was not enough for living, even combined with what Nina earned, and I, following to an advice from a pupil of my brother Misha, Lesha Brstanicky, [signed a contract and] agreed to write "History of the Media" for Azerbaijan.


All they searched for more aristocratic and more ancient ancestors, and Azerbaijanis hoped, that Medes were their ancient ancestors.

 

The staff of Institute of history of Azerbaijan resembled me a good panopticon. All members had appropriate social origin and were party members (or so it was considered); few could hardly talk Persian, but basically all were occupied by mutual eating (office politics - AB). Characteristic feature: once, when we had a party (a banquet) in my honor at the Institute director’ apartment (who, if I am not wrong, was commissioned from a railway related-job), I was amazed by fact that in this society consisted solely of Communist party members, there were no women. Even the mistress of the house appeared only once about four o'clock in the morning and has drunk a toast for our health with a liqueur glass, standing at the doors.
 
The majority of employees of the Institute had very distant relation to science. Among other guests were my friend Lenja Bretanitsky (which, however, worked at other institute), certain complacent and wise old man, who according to rumors, was a red agent during Musavatists time, one bearer of hero of Soviet Union medal, arabist, who later become famous after publication of one scientific historical medieval, either Arabic, or Persian manuscript, from which all quotes about Armenians were removed completely; besides that there were couple of mediocre archeologists; the rest were [Communist] party activists, who were commissioned to scientific front.

 

Shortly before that celebrations of a series of anniversaries of great poets of the USSR people started. Before the war a celebration of Armenian epos hero of David of Sassoon anniversary took place (epos’ date was unknown, though). I caught only the end of the celebrations in 1939 while participating in the expedition, excavating Karmir Blur [in Armenia]. And it was planned an anniversary of the great poet Nizami celebration in Azerbaijan. There were slight problems with Nizami - first of all he was not Azeri but Persian (Iranian) poet, and though he lived in presently Azerbaijani city of Ganja, which, like many cities in the region, had Iranian population in Middle Ages.  Second, according to the ritual, it was required to place a portrait of the poet on a prominent place, and whole building in one of the central areas of Baku was allocated for a museum of the paintings illustrating Nizami poems.

Problem was that the Koran strictly forbids any images of alive essences, and nor a Nizami portrait, neither paintings illustrating his poems never existed at all.

So Nizami portrait and paintings illustrating his poems were ordered three months before celebrations start.  The portrait has been delivered to the house of Azerbaijan Communist party first secretary Bagirov, local Stalin. He called a Middle Ages specialist from the Institute of History, drew down a cover from the portrait and asked:
- Is it close to original?
- Who is the original? - the expert has shy mumbled. Bagirov has reddened from anger.
- Nizami!
- You see, - the expert told, - they have not created portraits in Middle Ages in the East...

All the same, the portrait occupied a central place in gallery. It was very difficult to imagine more ugly collection of ugly, botched work, than that which was collected on a museum floor for the anniversary.

I could not prove to Azeris, that Medes were their ancestors, because, after all, it was not so. But I wrote "History of the Media", big, detailed work.   Meanwhile, according to the USSR law a person could not have more than one job, so I was forced to leave (without a regret) Azerbaijan Academy of sciences, and, alas, the Hermitage, with its scanty earnings. For some period I worked at Leningrad’s office of History museum…

 

(It should be noted that Diakonoff here considers Azeris as equivalent to a Turkic group, where-as in this author’s opinion, Azeri’s have a considerable Iranic heritage and thus the Medes and their civilization are part of the broader Iranic heritage).

 

http://www.srcc.msu.su/uni-persona/site/authors/djakonov/posl_gl.htm

 

Original Russian:

 

В Университете нашу кафедру, как я уже говорил, закрыли «за сионизм». По специальности «история Древнего Востока» оставили одну ставку – и я уступил ее Липину, не зная еще тогда достоверно, что он стукач, и на его совести жизнь милого и доброго Ники Ерсховича. Но на одну эрмитажную зарплату было не прожить с семьей, даже с тем, что зарабатывала Нина, и я, по совету ученика моего брата Миши, Лени Брстаницкого, подрядился написать для Азербайджана «Историю Мидии». Все тогда искали предков познатнее и подревнее, и азербайджанцы надеялись, что мидяне – их древние предки. Коллектив Института истории Азербайджана представлял собой хороший паноптикум. С социальным происхождением и партийностью у всех было все в порядке (или так считалось); кое-кто мог объясниться по-персидски, но в основном они были заняты взаимным поеданием. Характерная черта: однажды, когда в мою честь был устроен банкет на квартире директора института (кажется, переброшенного с партийной работы на железной дороге), я был поражен тем, что в этом обществе, состоявшем из одних членов партии коммунистов, не было ни одной женщины. Даже хозяйка дома вышла к нам только около четвертого часа утра и выпила за наше здоровье рюмочку, стоя в дверях комнаты. К науке большинство сотрудников института имело довольно косвенное отношение. Среди прочих гостей выделялись мой друг Леня Бретаницкий (который, впрочем, работал в другом институте), один некий благодушный и мудрый старец, который, по слухам, был красным шпионом, когда власть в Азербайджане была у мусаватистов, один герой Советского Союза, арабист, прославившийся впоследствии строго научным изданием одного исторического средневекового, не то арабо-, не то ирано-язычного исторического источника, из которого, однако, были тщательно устранены все упоминания об армянах; кроме того, были один или два весьма второстепенных археолога; остальные вес были партработники, брошенные на науку. Изысканные восточные тосты продолжались до утра. Незадолго перед тем началась серия юбилеев великих поэтов народов СССР. Перед войной отгремел юбилей армянского эпоса Давида Сасунского (дата которого вообще-то неизвестна) – хвостик этого я захватил в 1939 г. во время экспедиции на раскопки Кармир-блура. А сейчас в Азербайджане готовился юбилей великого поэта Низами. С Низами была некоторая небольшая неловкость: во-первых, он был не азербайджанский, а персидский (иранский) поэт, хотя жил он в ныне азербайджанском городе Гяндже, которая, как и большинство здешних городов, имела в Средние века иранское

 

население. Кроме того, по ритуалу полагалось выставить на видном месте портрет поэта, и в одном из центральных районов Баку было выделено целое здание под музей картин, иллюстрирующих поэмы Низами. Особая трудность заключалась в том, что Коран строжайше запрещает всякие изображения живых существ, и ни портрета, ни иллюстрацион картин во времена Низами в природе не существовало. Портрет Низами и картины, иллюстрирующие его поэмы (численностью на целую большущую галерею) должны были изготовить к юбилею за три месяца.

Портрет был доставлен на дом первому секретарю ЦК КП Азербайджана Багирову, локальному Сталину. Тот вызвал к себе ведущего медиевиста из Института истории, отдернул полотно с портрета и спросил:

– Похож?

– На кого?... – робко промямлил эксперт. Багиров покраснел от гнева.

– На Низами!

– Видите ли, – сказал эксперт, – в Средние века на Востоке портретов не создавали...

Короче говоря, портрет занял ведущее место в галерее. Большего собрания безобразной мазни, чем было собрано на музейном этаже к юбилею, едва ли можно себе вообразить.

Доказать азербайджанцам, что мидяне – их предки, я не смог, потому что это все-таки не так. Но «Историю Мидии» написал – большой, толстый, подробно аргументированный том. Между тем, в стране вышел закон, запрещающий совместительство, и мне пришлось (без сожаления) бросить и Азербайджанскую Академию наук, и, увы, Эрмитаж с его мизерным заработком. Некоторое время работал с Ленинградском отделении Института истории, созданном на руинах разгромленного уникального музея истории письменности Н.П.Лихачсва, а одно время числился почему-то по московскому отделению этого же Института истории."

I guess Zehtabi did not have access to this 1994 published writing of Diakonoff and even if he did, he probably would have considered Medes to be Turkic anyways.

 

Diakonoff is very clear in his article in Cambridge history of Iran, published in 1985:

‘’It is pretty certain that pastoral tribes with subsidiary agriculture who created the archeological Srubnya(Kurgan) and Andorovo cultures of steppes of Eastern Europe, Kazakhistan, and Soviet Central Asia in the 2nd millennium B.C. were the direct precursors of the Scythians and the Sacae, i.e. of the “Eastern” Iranians.  But this means that the division of the tribes speaking Indo-Iranian (Aryan), into Indo-Aryan and Iranians, must have antedates the creation of these two archeological cultures.  It also means that the ancestors of the speakers of Indo-Aryan and “Western” Iranian idioms(Median, Persian and Parthian) must have reached the south-western part of Central Asia and Easter Iran already earlier, by the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C.  During the 2nd millennium a considerable part of the population of the Iranian Plateau must already have spoken Indo-Iranian languages, perhaps even Old Iranian languages.’’

 

Thus Zehtabi’s manipulation of Diakonoff’s scholarly writing shows a clear lack of disrespected for academic scholarship.

 

Indeed classical authors have stated very clearly that the Medes are Arian.

 

Herotodus (7.62) : The Medes had exactly the same equipment as the Persians; and indeed the dress common to both is not so much Persian as Median. They had for commander Tigranes, of the race of the Achaemenids. These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians.

 

Herodotus for example records the word Spaka (dog) in Median.  Interestingly enough this is related to the  modern Persian Sak/Sag, Talyshi Sipi.  Indeed one of the phonetic differences between Old Persian and Median is the transformation of sp->s.  So where-as the Median word for horse is Aspa, the old Persian is Asa.  Both terms are seen in Old Persian inscriptions. 

 

 

Strabo in his geography clearly states (15.8):

 

‘’ the name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations."

 

The idea that the Medes had any relationship with the discredited theory of Turanian language is a 19th century idea proposed by some Orientalists of the 19th century.  The reason was that the  Elamite trilingual inscription of Bistun was not yet deciphered, and the Old Persian reading was at an early stage and some Orientalists were not sure about the nature of the Elamite inscription and had guessed it was Median.  Zehtabi does not discuss this fact in his book and just cherry picks the 19th century authors that suits his revisionist agenda. 

 

Indeed to quote a website describing mid 19th century research:

 

At the very beginning of the deciphering adventure, when Grotefend, Rawlinson, Westergaard and de Saulcy wrote about the language of the so-called second kind, they did not know they were dealing with Elamite. They named it Median. Why was Elamite called Median? Which is the link between a written language and his name, and the people who spoke it? How did Median become today Elamite?

As soon as the first kind was connected to the language of Avesta, which was known since the second half of the 18th century and supposed to be located in Bactria, it was named Old Persian and therefore located in Persia. Then the languages of the second and third kind could be related to «the neighbouring countries of ancient Media and Susiana». As to the language of the second kind, the name 'Median' was preferred, even if Westergaard was aware that doing so, he disregarded the testimony of Strabo «who plainly tells us –I am quoting Westergaard- that the Medes and Persians spoke nearly one and the same language». It was in 1844 and Westergaard referred to Rawlinson as 'oriental scholar'.

http://digilander.libero.it/elam/elam/second_column_speech.htm

 


Thus Zehtabi simply rehashes obsolete or false theories and other pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh, simply quotes revisionist works in their books.

 

On some of the other Median words that have survived and clearly show the Iranian nature of the language, one may refer to:

 

Kent, Roland G. (1953). Old Persian. Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 2nd ed., New Haven: American Oriental Society.  pp. 8-9.

 

 

"Ancient Iran::The coming of the Iranians". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. (2007).

 

Schmitt, Rüdiger (1989). Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 

 

"Ancient Iran::Language". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. (2007).

 

And many other references can be found through google books.

 

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22medes%22+%22Iranian+people%22&btnG=Search+Books

 

It should be mentioned that many scholars including Vladimir Minorsky have connected the Medes with Kurds.  Besides the common Indo-Iranian language, some of the oldest Kurdish writings are preserved by Armenian church documents.  In these documents, Kurdish is explicitly called the “Median Language”.  See here for an example:

 

Language of Medians

David Mackenzie (1959)

 

Parthians

 

There is sufficient manuscripts from Parthian, the Parthian calendar, Parthian inscription of Nisa, Tang Sarvak, …etc. to show that Parthians was Iranian language.

For example, see:

Schmitt, Rüdiger (1989). Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 

Some other scholarly references are given here:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Parthians/parthianmain.htm

 

Since the examples of Parthians are much more than Median, the author will simply refer to the above sources and other modern references:

http://www.parthia.com/

 

http://books.google.com/books?q=Parthian+%22Iranian+tribe%22&btnG=Search+Books

 

 

Other pseudo-scholars mentioned by Asgharzadeh

 

Racist Websites

 

Asgharzadeh’s list of unreliable pseudo-scholars and racist websites goes on.  He cites websites like:

http://www.shamstabriz.com/index.htm

 

The site is full of articles expressing hatred against Armenians, Kurds and Iranians.  For example:

 

http://www.shamstabriz.com/tabrizly-kord1.htm

 

Talks about kicking Kurds out of their native land although as shown in the above, the Medes are native inhabitants of Azerbaijan.  Same with Armenians.  Yet Alireza Asgharzadeh’s racist mind does not know any limit in pursuing his pan-Turkist ethnic agenda

 

 

Javad Heyat

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

جواد هيئت در يکي از کتابهايش مي نويسد:"سلطان محمود غزنوي به علت علاقه اي که به زبان فارسي داشت دربارش مرکز شعراي فارسي زبان مانند منوچهري ، فرخي ، اسدي طوسي ، فردوسي و غيره بود و براي اشاعه زبان فارسي در ايران و هندوستان از هيچ اقدامي فرو گذار نکرد. زبان فارسي را در قلمرو حکومت خود رسمي کرد و به گفته مورخين چهل و پنچ هزار معلم براي ياد دادن فارسي به مناطق مختلف ايران گسيل داشت...." ((جواد هيئت، سيري در زبان لهجه هاي تركي، تهران، نشر نو)

 

Translation: Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi because of his strong liking of the Persian language had many Persian poets at his court including Manuchehri, Farrokhi, Asadi Tusi and Ferdowsi and for the spread of the Persian language, he did all he could.  He made Persian official in his court and according to historians, sent out 45000 Persian teachers to different parts of Iran!

 

Interestingly enough, Ferdowsi was not a court poet.  But more interestingly, Dr. Heyat does not provide any source for his absurd claim that Sultan Mahmud sent 45000 Persian tutors to different parts of Iran.  It should be noted that Javad Heyat runs a pan-Turkist journal in Iran called Varliq where the writings of pseudo-scholars like Purpirar and Zehtabi are given prominence.  More interestingly the journal is written in large part in Azerbaijani yet pan-Turkists claim Azerbaijani Turkic is banned in Iran!

 

 

Sadiq Mohammadzadeh

 

Another pan-Turkism pseudo-scholar, revisionist and falsifier is Sadiq Mohammazadeh.  Interestingly enough, just like Javad Heyat and Zehtabi, Sadiq Mohammadzadeh was also educated in a pan-Turkism country (Turkey).  The following is a sufficient example of the absurd beliefs of Sadiq Mohammadzadeh:

 

« البته‌ زبان‌ اوستايي‌ خود يك‌ زبان‌ التصاقي‌ است‌ و 70% از مخزن‌ واژگان‌ اوستايي‌،تركي‌ است‌ كه‌ براي‌ شرح‌ اين‌ موضوع‌ فرصت‌ و مجالي‌ ديگر لازم‌ است‌.»

 

Of course Avesta is an agglutinative language and 70% of the vocabulary of Avesta is Turkish.  This fact can be explained in another opportunity.

 

Alireza Nazmi Afshar


Alireza Nazmi Afshar is another pan-Turkism separatist.  Alireza Asgharzadeh mentions a very interesting comment in baybak.com (a distortion of the Persian name Babak Khorramdain in order to turn an ancient Persian figure into a Turkic figure)

 

http://www.en.baybak.com/?p=266

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh writes:

‘’ Dr Alireza Nazmi-Afshar, a well-known Azerbaijani activist, warns the Azerbaijanis that the independence of South Azerbaijan from Iran will eventually lead to the independence of Kurds from Turkey, which in his view, would be disastrous to the Turks all over the world. As he puts it,

The Azerbaijanis’ demand for independence from Iran, no matter how reasonable and rightful, will legitimize similar demands on the part of PKK Kurds in Turkey and Dashnak Armenians in Qarabagh… Is this really what we want? By saying this perhaps I will be accused of Pan-Turkism. But if this kind of responsibility towards other Turks and their national interests…is Pan-Turkism…then I am a Pan-Turkism. I am a Pan-Turkism. I am a Pan-Turkism.’’

Interesting enough, the ulterior motive of Alireza Asgharzadeh by agreeing with Alireza Nazmi Afshar is shown.  They know that there are more Kurds in Turkey (20 million+) than Azeris in Iran (despite the pan-Turkism wild claim of 30 million Azeris, it will be shown below how pan-turkists like Asgharzadeh and Nazmi Afshar manipulate statistics and the actual number of Turkic speaking groups is at most 20% of Iran.) and this will cause major headaches for their backers. 

 

A response to one of Alireza Nazmi Asher’s manipulation of ethnic populations in Iran has been given here:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/moshtaaghaandighalim2.htm

 

It should be noted that West Azerbaijan (75% Kurdish), Qazvin (mainly Persian), Hamadan (a mixture of different ethnic groups with Azeri’s being 25%), Arak (mainly Persian), from Astara to Rasht (mainly Talysh and Gilak speaking) have been included in the pan-Turkist expansionist map of Nazmi Afshar and supported by Pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh.  Indeed the fact that West Azerbaijan province is a predominantly Kurdish province has created much headaches for pan-Turkists since it forms a natural border against expansion from Turkey.

 

Thus Asgharzadeh knows that Turkey and Azerbaijan republic will be put in poor shape if Azeris separate.  So he is careful to spread pan-Turkism gradually.  He wants Kurds and Armenians to be taken out first before dealing with the rest of Iranians.  Unfortunately for Alireza Asgharzadeh, that West Azerbaijan and Eastern Turkey is virtually all Kurdish and as he points out, ultimately Turkey will be a big loser in the pan-Turkism again.   Armenia also has shown that is not going to watch for another genocide.   Thus the dream of the pan-Turkism grand union will not be coming any time soon and the Pan-Turkists like Nazmi Afshar and Asgharzadeh will just have to dream about the fake ethnic maps they draw:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/moshtaaghaandighalim2.htm

Another pan-Turkist by the name of Reza Beraheni who also reviews Asgharzadeh’s book was recently very distressed by an accurate map from the BBC and tried to use false statistics in order to enlarge the number of ethnic Azeris:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/pasokhbehberahani.htm

 

All these pan-Turkists have land claims on Iran and any means necessary is used in order to achieve them.  Weather hiding under words such as “racist, anti-racist, colonialism, democtratic struggles” or fascist words like those of Grey wolf)

 

 

 

Historical Turco-Iranian Encounters

 

In this article, we do not deal extensively with Historical Turco-Iranian relations.  It is this author’s belief that these historical encounters had both positive and negative impacts.  But Iranian civilization lost much more where-as Turkish civilization gained from these encounters.  Nevertheless as stated in the beginning, the author does not judge any person by their background.  The discussion brought in this section is historical and should be viewed only in the context of history.  The reason an overview of this historical material is necessary is exactly because the likes of Zehtabi/Purpirar/Asgharzadeh would want to rewrite history.  But that is futile attempt and history can not be changed.  Thus it is important to give a sketch and outline of Turco-Iranian encounters from scholarly materials for two reasons.  The first reason is that many people are not aware of the relationship between these two groups before the 19th century and the era of pan-Turkism.  The second reason is that any reader who is interested in dealing with pan-Turkism (as exemplified by Alireza Asgharzadeh, Zehtabi, Nazmi Afshar and etc.) and Iran should know when Turks came to Iran (the author will refer to the likes of Asgharzadeh, Zehtabi, Afshar and etc. as Turks, but Iranian Azeris who are aware of their Iranian heritage and are not anti-Iran are referred to as Iranian Azerbaijanis). 

 

Most scholars believe Turo-Iranian encounters date back to the Sassanid times.  According to C.E. Bosworth, a well known historian who has written multitude of books and articles on Islamic dynasties, ’’In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, “Turan”). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians.’’.( Encyclopedia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth)

 

Similaly he states:

‘’ The collapse of the native Iranian dynasties of the north-east (Iranian regions of central asia) was followed within a few decades by a major migration of Turkish peoples, the Oghuz, from the outer steppes.’’(C.E. Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1200) in Camb. Hist. Iran V)

 

One of the calamities brought by Turks against the indigenous Iranian Civilizations of Central were the total erasable of Soghdians and Khwarzmians as well as Iranian nomads like those of the Alans, Sakas and etc. 

According to Bosworth:

‘’At the opening of the 5th/11th (Islamic and Christian dates respectively) century, the Iranian world still extended far beyond the Oxus, embracing the regions of Khwarazm, Transoxiana (called by the Arabs Ma ward9 al-nahr, "the lands beyond the river"), and Farghana. In pre-Christian and early Christian times the Massagetae, the Sakae, the Scyths, the Sarmatians, and the Alans—all Indo-European peoples— had roamed the Eurasian steppes from the Ukraine to the Altai.’’ (C.E. Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1200) in Camb. Hist. Iran V).

 

Indeed Rene Grouse consider the constant attacks on Iranian civilization from the Altaic nomads of central wonders: “For us it is very hard to imagine why the civilization of Iranians after so many calamities did not come to an end”.  See below:

رنه گروسه («ايران ونقش تاريخی آن» ترجمه غلامعلی سيار - مجله هستی - تابستان ۱۳۷۲، ص 105) نیز به حمله بیابانگردان آسیای میانه به ایران اشاره می کند و در پايان نكته ي مهمي را نيز متذكر مي گردد:

« ... لکن در سال ۱۳۸۳ ميلادی تيمور لنگ با نقشه قبلی اين ايالت (= سيستان) را منهدم کرد، به اين طريق که - بار ديگر تکرار می کنم- شبکه آبياری را که عامل باروری زمين بود نابود ساخت و قنوات را کور کرد و در نتيجه، آنها به مرداب مبدل شدند و با برکندن درختان و نيستانها و درختان گز که مانع پيشروی کوير در اراضی مزروعی می شدند اين اراضی به شنزار مبدل نمود.  هيات علمی هاکن(Hakckin) فيلمی که از ساروتار (Sar-Otar) برداشته نشان می دهد که چگونه تاتاران زمين را نابود کرده، نهر آبی که آن را مشروب می کرد مسدود ساخته و آن منطقه را به صحرايی بی آب و علف مبدل کرده اند...و بدين طريق يکی از انبارهای غله ايران تهی از همه چيز گشت تا اين که بعدها قنوات سابق از نو تعبيه شوند. برای ما تصور اين نکته دشوار است که چگونه عمر تمدن ظريف ايرانی، پس از چنين فاجعه هايی به سر نيامد».

 

 

 

 

Victor Hugo, the French philosopher also had a negative view of the nomadic attack on civilization: ‘’ Wherever the Turkish hoof trods, no grass grows.’’.  This author neither condemns or condones such a statement in its own time (not today) but demonstrates that similar examples exist in Persian.

 

In Persian the word Tork-taazi ( Turkish attack) became equivalent to pillage/massacre.

 

Like other civilizations that suffered from invaders and expansion (those of Greece, Armenia....), Iranians poets and writers have also shown hostility to the nomadic encroachment.   We will bring examples of these from Persian literature.  Such excerpts clearly show that Iranians suffered from nomadic Turkic invasions:

 

قطران تبريزی نيزدر بسياری از چکامه هايش ترکان را شايسته سرزنش دانسته و انان را سخت نکوهش کرده است .

نمونه هايی از ان ابيات در ذيل می ايد :

اگر بگذشت از جيحــون گروه ترکمانـــان را // ملک محمـــــــود کــاو را بود زابل کان در سنجر

....

زمانی تازش ايشان به شروان اندرون بودی // زمانـــی حملـــه ايشان بــــه اذربايگــــان انــدر

نبود از تازش ايشان کسی بر چيز خود ايمن // نبود از حمله ايشان کسی بر مال خود سرور (شهرياران گمنام، 1377، ص۱۶۰)

شده چون خانه زنبور با غم از ترکان // همی خلند به فرمان ما چو زنبورم (همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در يکی از سروده هايش به هنگام ستايش يکی از فرمانروايان بومی اذربايجان عامل عدم پيشرفت کار او را حضور ترکان برشمرده است :

گر نبودی آفت ترکان به گيتی در پديد // بستدی گيتی همه چون خسروان باستان ( همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در بدگويی و مذمت ترک تباران چنان سخن گفته که حتی انان را موجب ويرانی ايران زمين برشمرده و اين مفهوم به روشنی از بيت زير که در ستايش اميری از اميران اذربايجان سرايش يافته برمی ايد :

اگر چه داد ايران را بلای ترک ويرانی // شود از عدلش ابادان چون يزدانش کند ياری ( همان، ص۱۹۷)

اين شاعر اذربايجانی در يکی ديگر از چکامه هايش که در قالب قصيده سروده است ترکان را خونخوار و جرار و غدار و مکار خوانده است :

کمــــر بستند بهــــر کيــن شه ترکان پيکاری // همـــه يکـرو به خونخواری همه يکدل به جراری

يکی ترکان مسعودی به قصد خيل مسعودان // نهاده تن به کين کاری و دل داده به خونخواری

....

چــه ارزد غـدر با دولت، چه ارزد مکـر با دانش // اگـرچـه کــــار ترکان هست غــداری و مکــاری( همان، ص۱۷۲)

 

بنابراین چنان که ملاحظه گرديد، یک شاعر برخاسته از آذربایجان در زماني پیش از ترک زبان شدن آذربایجان، حسي بسیار منفی نسبت به ترکان اغوز آن دوران داشته است.  حال به چه دلیلی این بخش از تاریخ ایران و آذربايجان را جناب رزمی نادیده می گیرد؟

سعدی شيرازی که نزديک به سی سال سير و سفر در در اين سوی و ان سوی سرزمينهای اسلامی کرده بود، علت خارج شدن خود از ايران زمين را نا به سامانی های بر امده از خشونت ترکان بر شمرده است :

ندانی کــــه مـن در اقاليم غربت // چـــرا روزگاری بــکـــــــردم درنــگــــی

برون رفتم از ننگ ترکان که ديدم // جهان درهم افتاده چون موی زنگی

همــــه ادمی زاده بودند ليکــــــن // چـو گرگــان بخونخوارگی تيزچنگی

چــو باز امـدم کشور اسوده ديدم // پـلـنگـــــان رهـــا کرده خوی پلنگی (گلستان سعدی، ص۳۸)

 

عنصری سمرقندی درباره ترکان اغوز و ویرانی های آنان در سمرقند می نویسد:


بر سمرقند اگر بگذري اي باد سحر
نامه اهل خراسان به بر خاقان بر
نامه اي مطلع آن رنج تن و آفت جان
نامه اي مقطع او درد دل و سوز جگر
نامه اي بر رقمش آه غريبان پيدا
نامه اي در شكنش خون شهيدان مضمر
نقش تحريرش از سينه مظلومان خشك
سطر عنوانش از ديده محرومان تر
ريش گردد ممر صوت از او گاه سماع
خون شود مردمك ديده از او وقت نظر
تا كنون حال خراسان و رعايا بوده ست
بر خداوند جهان، خاقان، پوشيده مگر
...
كارها بسته بود بي شك در وقت و كنون
وقت آن است كه راند سوي ايران لشكر
باز خواهد ز غزان كينه كه واجب باشد
خواستن كين پدر بر پسر خوب سير
....
قصه اهل خراسان بشنو از سر لطف
چون شنيدي ز سر رحم در ايشان بنگر
اين دل افگار جگر سوختگان مي گويند
كاي دل و دولت و دين از تو به شادي و ظفر
خبرت هست كه از اين زير و زبر شوم غزان
نيست يك تن ز خراسان كه نشد زير و زبر
خبرت هست كه از هر چه در او خير بود
در همه ايران امروز نمانده ست اثر
بر بزرگان زمانه شده دونان سالار
بر كريمان جهان گشته لئيمان مهتر
بر در دونان احرار، حزين و حيران
در كف رندان, ابرار اسير و مضطر
شاد، الا به در مرگ نبيني مردم
بكر جز در شكم مام نبيني دختر
مسجد جامع هر شهر ستورانشان را
پايگاهي شده، ني نقشش پيدا و نه در
خطبه نكنند به هر خطه غزان، از پي آنك
در خراسان نه خطيب است كنون نه منبر
كشته فرزند گراميش اگر نا گاهان
بيند از بيم خروشيد نيارد مادر
بر مسلمانان زان شكل كنند استخفاف
كه مسلمان نكند صد يك از آن بر كافر...
رحم كن رحم كن بر آن قوم (=ايرانيها) كه جويند جوين
از پس آن كه بخوردند ز انبان شكر
رحم كن رحم كن بر آن قوم كه نبود شب و روز
در مصيبتشان جز نحوه گري كار دگر
رحم كن رحم كن بر آنها كه نيابند نمد
از پس آن كه ز اطلس شان بودي بستر.....

 

خاطرات نجم الدين رازي معروف به دايه نیز گواه خوبی در اين باره است.  وي يکي از رهبران مهم صوفيه و نثر نويس پخته اين روزگار است که تا سال 653 زنده بوده است. او شاگرد نجم الدين کبري است که در حمله مغولان به خوارزم در ميدان جنگ کشته شده است. مهم ترين اثر وي، کتاب مرصاد العباد است که راه هاي سلوک عرفاني را به زبان پارسي دري شرح داده است. دربخشي از اين متن به حمله ترک و مغول و گريز خود اشاره کرده است. با هم اين بخش را مي خوانيم:
«در تاريخ شهور سنۀ سبع و عشر و ستمائه (617) لشکر مخذول ِ کفار تتار استيلا يافت بر آن ديار ، و آن فتنه و فساد و قتل و اسر و هدم و حرق که از آن ملاعين ظاهر گشت، در هيچ عصر و ديار کفر و اسلام کس نشان نداده است و در هيچ تاريخ نيامده الا انچه خواجه(پيغمبر) عليه الصلوة و السلام از فتنه هاي آخر الزمان خبر باز داده است و فرموده: لا تَقومُ السٌاعة حتي تُقاتِلوا التٌُرک صغارَ الاعين حُمرَ الوجوه ذلف الانوف کان وجوههم المجان المطرقة ، صفت اين کفار ملاعين کرده است و فرموده که ، قيامت برنخيزد تا آنگاه که شما با ترکان قتال نکنيد، قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده. و بعد از آن فرموده است: و يکثر الهرج، قيل: يا رسول الله! ما الهرج؟ قال:القتل ، القتل. فرمود که قتل بسيار شود. به حقيقت، اين واقعه آن است که خواجه عليه الصلوة و السلام به نور نبوت پيش از ششصد و اند سال باز ديده بود. قتل ازين بيشتر چگونه بود که از يک شهر ري که مولد و منشـأ اين ضعيف است و ولايت آن قياس کرده اند ، کما بيش پانصد هزار آدمي به قتل آمده و اسير گشته. و فتنه و فساد آن ملاعين بر جملگي اسام و اساميان از آن زيادت است که در حٌيز عبارت گنجد... عاقبت چون بلا به غايت رسيد و محنت به نهايت و کار به جان رسيد و کارد به استخوان...اين ضعيت از سهر همدان که مسکن بود به شب بيرون آمد با جمعي از درويشان و عزيزان در معرض خطري هرچ تمام تر ، در شهور سنۀ ثمان عشر و ستمائه به راه اربيل و بر عقب اين فقير خبر چنان رسيد كه كفار ملاعين..به شهر همدان آمدند و حصار دادند و اهل شهر به قدر و وسع بكوشيدند و چون طاقت مقاومت نماند - كفار دست يافتند و شهر بستند و خلق بسيار كشند و بسي اطفال را و عورات را اسير بردند و خرابي تمام كردند و اقرباي اين ضعيف را كه به شهر بودند٬ بيشتر شهيد كردند.
باريد به باغ ما تگرگي
وز گلبن ما نماند برگي»

افلاکی شاگرد مولانا جلال الدین از زبان مولانا نقل میکند:

همچنان حکايت مشهورست که روزي حضرت شيخ صلاح الدين (منظورش صلاح الدين زرکوب است) جهت عمارت باغ خود مشاقان ترکي بمزدروي گرفته بود; حضرت مولانا فرمود که افندي یعنی خدواند صلاح الدين در وقت عمارتي که باشد مشاقان رومي بايد گرفتن و در وقت خراب کردن چيزي مزدوران ترک;  چه عمارت عالم مخصوص است بروميان و خرابي  جهان مقصودست به ترکان; و حق سبحانه و تعالي چون ايجاد عالم ملک فرمود ..گروه ترکان آفريد تا بي محابا و شفقت هر عمارتي که ديدند خراب کردند و منهدم گردانيدند، و هنوز مي کنند و همچنان يوما بيوم تا قيامت خراب خواهند کردن...

 

غم مخور از دي و غز و غارت

وز در من بين کارگزاري

(ديوان شمس)

 

آن غزان ترک خون ريز آمدند

بهر يغما بر دهي ناگه زدند

دو کسي از عيان ده  يافتند

در هلاک آن يکي بشتافتند

(مثنوي)

در دیوان سلطان ولد از سلجوقیان ایرانی-تبار و ایرانی-شده خواسته میشود که سلسله متعصب ترکان قرمانی را نابود کنند.  سلسله قرمانی که بر ترکیت خود تعصبات خاصی داشته زبان دربار خود را ترکی کزده بودند و گویا با ادیبان و شاعران فارسی گوی میانه ای نداشتند.  از آثار مولانا و سلطان ولد و تمامی نویسندگان طریق مولوی در نیمه اول قرن چهاردهم میلادی (برای نمونه افلاکی) چنین بر می‌آید که آنان بکلی مخالف عصیان‌های ترکمن‌های آناطولی بر علیه سلجوقیان بودند.  در مکتوبات مولانا و دیوان سلطان ولد و مناقب افلاکی، پیروان مولویه نسبت به ترکمانان قرامان اوغلو و اشرف اوغلو دشمنی نشان داده و آثار مختلف به جای گذاشته‌اند.

 

بعد از مرگ محمد‌بیک قرامانلو و شکست ترکمانان، سلطان غیاث‌الدین مسعود دوم به قونیه آمد و بر تخت نشست.  سلطان ولد سه منظومنه درباره جلوس و تهنیت او سروده و اظهار وجد و سرور کرده است.  او در یکی از منظومه‌ها از سلطان درخواست می‌کند که نسبت به ترکانی که از پیش سلطان فرار کرده و از ترس جان به کوهها و غارها پناه برده‌اند، ترحم نکند و جمله را به فصاص رسانیده و زنده نگذارد.

 

به دولت شاه شاهانی به صولت شیر شیرانی

همه ترکان ز بیم جان شده در غار و کُه پنهان

چو نبود شیر در بیشه رود از گرگ اندیشه

پلنگ اکنون بشد موشی، چو آمد شیر حق غٌران

چو ماران رفته در کُه‌خا در آن بیشه به انده‌ها

همه چون روز می‌دانند که خواهی کوفت شرهاشان

همه در گریۀ ناله، بخون در غرق چون لاله

گهی بر موت خود گریان، گهی بر خوف خان و مان

چو رنجوران بی‌درمان به‌شسته دستها از جان

به اومیدی طم کرده که بوک از شه رسد غفران

گذشت از حد‌این زحفت مکن شاها توشان رحمت

حیات خلق اگر خواهی بکن آن جمله را قربان

لکم اندر قصاص خلق حیات و این شنو از حق

قصاص چشم چشم آمد به داندان هم بود دندان

حیات اندر قصاص آمد جهانرا ازین خلاص آمد

نبودی هیچکس زنده برین گر نامدی فرمان

خوارج را مهل زنده اگر میرست اگر بنده

که خونی کشتنی باشد به شرع آیت قرآن

ولد کردست نفرین‌ها برون از چرخ و پروین‌ها

که یارب زین سگان بد ببر هم جان و هم ایمان

 

(لازم به ذکر است که فریدون نافذ اوزلوک مترجم دیوان سلطان ولد به ترکی، در نخستین بیت منظومه فوق، به جای «همه ترکان» لغت خوارج را گمارده است.  ایشان به این اقدام بی‌مورد تحرق آشکار، حس کینه و نفرت سلطان ولد را نسبت به ترکان پرده‌پورشی کرده و از چشم خوانندگانی که فارسی نمی‌دانند پنهان داشته است).

 

 

سلطان ولد در منظومۀ دیگر که ار پیروزی سلطان مسعود بر ترکان سخن رانده است.

 

ترکان عالم سوز را از غار و کوه بیشه‌ها

آورده در طاعت خدا چون شاه ما مسعود شد

 

 

ناصر شمس معروف به کافرک غزنین:

تا ولایت به دست ترکان است

مرد آزاده بی زر و نان است

 

خاقانی شیروانی می سراید:

آشنای دل بيگانه مشو / آب و نان از در بيگانه مخور

 نان ترکان مخور و بر سرخوان /  با ادب نان خور و ترکانه مخور

خون خوری ترکانه کاین از دوستی است//
خون مخور ، ترکی مکن ، تازان مشو //
کشتیم پس خویشتن نادان کنی//
این همه دانا مکش ، نادان مشو//

نظامی گنجوی در لیلی و مجنون می سراید:

تُرکی صِفَت وَفای ما نيست // تُرکانِه سُخن سِزای ما نيست// آن کز نَسَبِ بُلَند زايد// او را سُخن بُلند بايد// به نِفرين تُرکان زَبان بَرگُشاد

 

در اسکندرنامه نیز دوباره به بی وفایی ترکان اشاره میکند:

 // که بی فِتنِه تُرکی زِ مادَر نَزاد//زِ چينی بِجُز چينِ اَبروُ مَخواه //ندارند پِيمان مردم نِگاه // سُخن راست گُفتند پيشينيان // که عَهد و وَفا نيست در چينيان // همه تَنگ چِشمی پَسنديده اند// فَراخی به چَشمِ کَسان ديده اند// خبر نی که مهر شما کين بُوَد// دل تُرکِ چين پُر خَمُ و چين بُوَد// اگر تُرکِ چينی وَفا داشتی // جهان زيرِ چين قَبا داشتی

و این دو شاعر  (خاقانی و نظامی) فردوسی بزرگ را چندین بار ستاییده اند.  برای نمونه از خاقانی: شمع جمع هوشمندان است در دیجور غم// نکته ای کز خاطر فردوسی طوسی بود// زادگاه طبع پاکش جملگی حوراوش اند// زاده حوراوش بود چون مرد فردوسی بود//

و نظامی گنجوی گوید: سخن گوی پیشینه دانای طوس// که آراست روی سخن چون عروس//

 

 

سنائی غزنوی که بارها از طرف مولانا و سلطان ولد و پدر مولانا بهاالدین ولد و یکی از دیگر آموزگاران برهان الدین ترمذی ستاییده شده است در مورد ترکان می‌گوید:

 

می‌نبینید آن سفیهانی که ترکی کرده‌اند

همچو چشم تنگ ترکان گور ایشان تنگ و تار

بنگرید آن جعدشان از خاک چون پشت کشف

بنگرید آن رویشان از چین چو پشت سوسمار

سر به خاک آورد امروز آنکه افسر بود دی

تن به دوزخ برد امسال آنکه گردن بود پار

ننگ ناید مر شما را زین سگان پر فساد

دل نگیرد مر شما را زین خران بی‌فسار

پاسبانان تو اند این سگ پرستان همچو سگ

هست مرداران ایشان هم بدیشان واگذار

..

زشت باشد نقش نفس  خوب را از راه طبع

گریه کردن پیش مشتی سگ پرست و موشخوار

اندر این زندان  بر این دندان‌زنان سگ‌صفت

روزکی چند ای ستمکش صبر کن، دندان فشار

تا ببینی روی آن مردمکُشان چون زعفران

تا ببینی روی این محنت کشان چون گل انار

گرچه آدم صورتان سگ‌صفت مستولی‌اند

هم کنون بینند کز میدان دل عیاروار

جوهر آدم برون تازد بر آرد ناگهان

از سگان آدمی کیمخت خر مردم دمار

..


تا ببینی موری آن خس را که می‌دانی امیر

تا بینی گرگی آن سگ را که می‌خوانی عیار

 

 

یکی از ریشه تعبیر عرفانی مفهوم ترک (غارتگري) را می توان در این چند بیت خواجه عبدالله انصاری جست:
عشق آمد و دل كرد غارت
اي دل تو بجان بر اين بشارت
تركي عجب است عشق داني
كز ترك عجيب نيست غارت
بنابراين مي توان گفت كه تركان اصيل چنان به تاراجگري و ويرانگري شهره و انگشت نما بوده اند كه در ادب و عرفان ايراني، تركان به نماد ويراني وتاراج مبدل مي شوند، به طوري كه در زبان فارسي به تهاجم و غارتگري «ترك تازي» گفته مي شود.

 

حتی عبدالرحمان جامی که یکی از شاعران بزرگ بوده است و در زمان سلاطین ترک-تبار میزیسته، این شعر را سروده است:

این شنيدستي که ترکي وصف جنت چون شنيد این

گفت با واعظ که انجا غارت و تاراج هست ؟
گفت ني ، گفت بدتر باشد زدوزخ ان بهشت
کاندرو کوته بود از غارت و تاراج دست

شاعري به نام قاسم و متخلص به مادح كه حماسه جهانگيري را محتملا در پايان سده ششم هجري سروده درباره تركان غز مي گويد:

«همه پهن رويان كوتاه قد
همه رويشان بود بي خط و خد
همه تنگ چشمان بيني دراز
همه بد دهانان و دندان گراز
همه تندخويان و با كين و خشم
به مال يتيمان سيه كرده چشم
همه تيره راي و همه بدگمان
كمر بسته در غارت مردمان
...»

حمدالله مستوفي، مورخ نام‌دار سده‌ي هشتم قمري، در منظومه‌ي خود به نام «ظفرنامه» توصيفي گويا از جنايت‌ها و ويران‌گري‌هاي مغول (لازم به ذکر است که اغلب سربازان و قبایل اتحادیه امپراتور مغول ترک تبار بودند)  در زادگاه خود، شهر «قزوين» ارائه كرده است:
مغول اندر آمد به قزوين دلير // سر همگنان آوريدند زير // ندادند كس را به قزوين امان // سر آمد سران را سراسر زمان // هر آن كس كه بود اندر آن شهر پاك // همه كشته افكنده بُد در مغاك // ز خرد و بزرگ و ز پير و جوان // نماندند كس را به تن در روان // زن و مرد هر جا بسي كشته شد // همه شهر را بخت برگشته شد // بسي خوب‌رويان ز بيم سپاه // بكردند خود را به تيره تباه // ز تخم نبي بي‌كران دختران // فروزنده چون بر فلك اختران // ز بيم بد لشكر رزم‌خواه // نگون درفكندند خود را به چاه // به هم برفكنده به هر جايگاه // تن كشتگان را به بي‌راه و راه // نماند اندر آن شهر جاي گذر // ز بس كشته افكنده بي‌حد و مر // ز بيم سپاه مغول هر كسي // گريزان برفتند هر جا بسي // برفتند چندي به جامع درون // پر اندوه جان و به دل پر ز خون // چو بودند از آن دشمن انديشه‌ناك // فراز مقرنس نهان گشت پاك // به مسجد، مغول اندر آتش فكند // زمانه برآمد به چرخ بلند // به آتش سقوف مقرنس بسوخت // وز آن كار كفر و ستم برفروخت.

 

Despite the constant attacks on Iranian civilization by Turkish nomads and today by the likes of Ali Reza Asgharzadeh and other pan-Turkists, the influence of Iranian civilization on Turkish civilization is undeniable, irrefutable and extremely heavy.  Numerous books have written on this matter.  Iranian civilization ultimately had a heavy influence in brining culture to Turks and to a large extent Iranizing many Turkic groups and dynasties.

 

A good source on pre-Islamic influence of Iranian civilizations on Turks is written by the Turkologist Annemarie Von Gabain in : (Irano-Turkish relations in the late Sasanian period," in Camb. Hist. Iran III/1, 1983, pp. 613-24).

This source may be obtained here:

Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period

Professor. Annemarie Von Gabain

 

In the source above, we read:

 

“There are many borrowings from Middle Iranian in Turkish culture to be mentioned.  Although the Turks learned writing soon after the foundation of their empire, their oldest inscription, as we have seen, was in Sogdian, the lingua franca of the time and in the Sogdian script, as is shown in the inscription near Bugut.  Only with the beginning of the nationalism at the start of the 8th century did the Kok-Turks, and later the Uigur Qaghans in the 9th century, write their inscription in their own language alongside a version in Chinese or Chinese and Sogdian.  The script used for these inscriptions, the so-called Kok-Turks “Runic” writing, was a lively adaptation, perhaps by a Sogdian, of cursive Aramaic, and indeed the Sogdian, “Uigur” and Manichaen scripts can all be attributed to the ephigraphical inventiveness of Sogdians.

 

…

 

From this large number of Middle Iranian elements in fundamental Uigur Buddhism it is clear that it was neither the Indians nor the Chinese but the Sogdians who first brought about the conversion of the Turks to their religion.

 

 

Nestorian Christianity must have been preached to the Turks not only by Syriac monks but also by Sogdian missionaries, for many Christian texts both in Syriac and in Sogdian have been found in the village of Bulayiq (in the oasis of Turfan), together with a few Turkish fragments.

 

Manichaeism came to the Uigurs through the Sogdians of Ch'ang-an.

…

 

 

In the middle of the 9th century, the Uigur Qaghan of the steppe, with the intention of introducing the nomad Turks gradually to the sedentary life, gave orders for a number of Chinese as well as of Sogdians to build him a "rich town".  To a Central Asian people the concept of "town" was specifically Iranian, being represented by kent ( < Sog. knhh), although it is also covered by a genuine Turkish word balt'q.

“

 

A Chinese source reports on Turks: "The Turks themselves are simple-minded and short-sighted, and dissension may have been roused among them. Unfortunately many Sogdians live among them who are cunning and insidious; they teach and instruct the Turks."  (Sergey G. Klyastorniy and Vladimir Aronovic Livsic, "The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised," Acta Orientalia Hungarica, 20 (1972), pp. 69-102.)

 

As we can see the Soghdians, an Iranian people, made major contributions to Turkish civilization and brought Christianity, Buddhism, Manichaeism to Turks.  The role of Iranians in brining Islam to Turkish and Iranizing many nomadic Turkic dynasties is well know and will be expounded upon later.

 

Mahmud al-Kasbgari, a central Asian  Turkish philologist of the eleventh century, who quoted

the Turkish proverb tats'iz tiirk bolmas, bass'iz bork bolmas, "without Iranians, the Turks amount to nothing, without a head, a cap is nothing."( Mahmud al-Kasgari, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwan Lughat at-Turk, 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1982-5, I, p. 273, II, p. 103.

 

Furthermore, al-Kashghari reports that because the Oghuz had mingled a lot with the Persians, they had forgotten many of their own words and had replaced them with Persian words.  (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's , Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149)

 

 

Unlike racists like Alireza Asgharzadeh, there are Turkish speaking scholars who have wide fame and are known to be more balanced.  Mehmad Fuad Koprulu also speaks about the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Iranian influence on Turks:

 

‘’On Pre-Islamic influence, one must mention Soghdians who influenced Eastern Turks greatly. 

Because of their geographical location, the Turks were in continuous contact with China and Iran from very ancient times. The early Chinese chronicles, which are reliable and comprehensive, show the relationship of the Turks with China fairly clearly. The early relationship of the Turks with Iran, however, only enters the light of history - leaving aside the legends in the Shahname — at the time of the last Sasanid rulers. After the Turks had lived under the influence of these two civilizations for centuries, Iran, which had accepted Islam, gradually brought them into its sphere of influence.  Even during the development of the Uighur civilization, which was the {Turkish civilization} most strongly influenced by China, the attraction of the Turks to Iranian civilization, which had proven its worth in art, language, and thought, was virtually unavoidable, especially after it was invigorated with a new religion.

 

Even before it drew the Turks into its sphere of influence, Iranian civilization had had, in fact, a major effect on Islam. With respect to the concept of govern­ment and the organization of the state, the Abbasids were attached not to the traditions of the khulafa al-rashidun {the first four caliphs} but to the mentality of the Sasanid rulers.  After Khurasan and Transoxiana passed into the hands of native Iranian — and subsequently highly Iranized Turkish — dynasties with only nominal allegiance to the Abbasids, the former Iranian spirit, which the Islamic onslaught was not able to destroy despite its ruthlessness, again revealed itself. In the fourth/tenth century, Persian language and literature began to grow and develop in an Islamic form. This PersoTslamic literature was influenced, to a large extent, by the literature of the conquerors. Not only were a great many words brought into the language via the new religion, but new verse forms, a new metrical system, and new stylistic norms were also adopted in great measure from the Arabs. Indeed, almost nothing remained of the old Iranian syllabic metrical system, the old verse forms, or the old ideas about literature. Still, the Iranians, as heirs of an ancient civilization, were able to express their own personality in their literature despite this enormous Arab influence. They adopted from the carud meters only those that suited their taste. They created or, perhaps, revived the ruba'i form {of verse}.   They also introduced novelties in the qasida form {of verse}, which can be considered an old and well known product of Arabic literature, and in the ghazal {lyric "love song"}.  Above all, by reanimat­ing {their own} ancient mythology, they launched an "epic cycle" that was completely foreign to Arabic literature.  These developments were on such a scale that the fifth/eleventh century witnessed the formation of a new Persian literature in all its glory.

 

The Turks adopted a great many elements of Islam not directly from the Arabs, but via the Iranians. Islamic civilization came to the Turks by way of Transoxiana from Khurasan, the cultural center of Iran. Indeed, some of the great cities of Transoxiana were spiritually far more Iranian than Turkish. Also, the Iranians were no strangers to the Turks, for they had known each other well before the appearance of Islam. For all these reasons, it was the Iranians who guided the Turks into the sphere of Islamic civilization. This fact, naturally, was to have a profound influence on the development of Turkish literature over the centuries.  Thus, we can assert that by the fifth/eleventh century at least, TurkoTslamic works had begun to be written in Turkistan and that they were subject to Perso-Islamic influence. If Iranian influence had made an impact so quickly and vigorously in an eastern region like Kashghar, which was a center of the old Uighur civilization and had been under continuous and strong Chinese influence, then naturally this influence must have been felt on a much wider scale in regions further to the west and closer to the cities of Khurasan. But unfortunately, ruinous invasions, wars, and a thousand other things over the centuries have destroyed the products of those early periods and virtually nothing remains in our possession. Let me state clearly here, however, that such Turkish works that imitated Persian forms and were written under the influence of Persian literature in Muslim centers were not widespread among the masses. They were only circulated among the learned who received a Muslim education in the madrasas {these colleges of Islamic law began to spread in the fifth/eleventh century}.

 

….

 

{As they emigrated to the west,} the Oghuz Turks who settled in Anatolia came into contact with Arab and Muslim Persian civilization and then, in the new region to which they had come, encountered remnants of ancient and non-Muslim civilizations. In the large and old cities of Anatolia, which were gradually Turkified, the Turks not only encountered earlier Byzantine and Armenian works of art and architecture, but also, as a result of living side by side with Christians, naturally participated in a cultural exchange with them. The nomadic Turks {i.e. Turkmen}, who maintained a tribal existence and clung to the way of life they had led for centuries, remained impervious to all such influences. Those who settled in the large cities, however, unavoidably fell under these alien influences.

At the same time, among the city people, those whose lives and livelihoods were refined and elevated usually had extensive madrasa educations and harbored a profound and genuine infatuation with Arab and Persian learning and literature. Thus, they cultivated a somewhat contemptuous indifference to this Christian civilization, which they regarded as materially and morally inferior to Islamic civilization. As a result, the influence of this non-Muslim civilization on the Turks was chiefly visible, and then only partially, in those arts, such as architecture, in which the external and material elements are more obvious. The main result of this influence was that life in general assumed a more worldly quality.

If we wish to sketch, in broad outline, the civilization created by the Seljuks of Anatolia, we must recognize that the local, i.e. non-Muslim, element was fairly insignificant compared to the Turkish and Arab-Persian elements, and that the Persian element was paramount/The Seljuk rulers, to be sure, who were in contact with not only Muslim Persian civilization, but also with the Arab civiliza­tions in al-jazlra and Syria - indeed, with all Muslim peoples as far as India — also had connections with {various} Byzantine courts. Some of these rulers, like

the great 'Ala' al-Dln Kai-Qubad I himself, who married Byzantine princesses and thus strengthened relations with their neighbors to the west, lived for many years in Byzantium and became very familiar with the customs and ceremonial at the Byzantine court. Still, this close contact with the ancient Greco-Roman and Christian traditions only resulted in their adoption of a policy of tolerance toward art, aesthetic life, painting, music, independent thought - in short, toward those things that were frowned upon by the narrow and piously ascetic views {of their subjects}. The contact of the common people with the Greeks and Armenians had basically the same result.

{Before coming to Anatolia,} the Turks had been in contact with many nations and had long shown their ability to synthesize the artistic elements that thev had adopted from these nations. When they settled in Anatolia, they encountered peoples with whom they had not yet been in contact and immediately established relations with them as well. Ala al-Din Kai-Qubad I established ties with the Genoese and, especially, the Venetians at the ports of Sinop and Antalya, which belonged to him, and granted them commercial and legal concessions.'' Mean­while, the Mongol invasion, which caused a great number of scholars and artisans to flee from Turkistan, Iran, and Khwarazm and settle within the Empire of the Seljuks of Anatolia, resulted in a reinforcing of Persian influence on the Anatolian Turks.   Indeed, despite all claims to the contrary, there is no question that Persian influence was paramount among the Seljuks of Anatolia. This is clearly revealed by the fact that the sultans who ascended the throne after Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw I assumed titles taken from ancient Persian mythology, like Kai-Khusraw, Kai-Ka us, and Kai-Qubad; and that. Ala' al-Din Kai-Qubad I had some passages from the Shahname inscribed on the walls of Konya and Sivas. When we take into consideration domestic life in the Konya courts and the sincerity of the favor and attachment of the rulers to Persian poets and Persian literature, then this fact {i.e. the importance of Persian influence} is undeniable.  With- regard to the private lives of the rulers, their amusements, and palace ceremonial, the most definite influence was also that of Iran, mixed with the early Turkish traditions, and not that of Byzantium. (Mehmed Fuad Koprulu's , Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, Translated by Gary Leiser and Robert Dankoff , Routledge, 2006, pg 149)

 

 

From the above, it is perfectly clear that many Turkic dynasties that initially conquered Iran and did great damage to its cities and infrastructure eventually gave up their nomadic ways and were Iranized to a large extent.   The reason these dynasties also adopted the Persian language is not because they loved Iranians, but simply because they lacked a sophisticated court and poetic languages and their culture was not as ancient as that of Iranians.  Thus despite imposing themselves on Iranian (which in modern term would be considered colonialism and  imperialism and all the mumbo-jumbo words used by Alireza Asgharzadeh to describe ethnic groups in Iran), Iranians to a large extent resisted Turkification and were able to impose Iranian culture on them.  Some of these dynasties like Ghaznavids for example even claimed Sassanid descent and more interestingly, there is not a single piece of Turkish writing under the Ghaznavids and many other Turkic dynasties.  We shall talk about the status of the Persian language, the national language of Iran, in a later section and expose the false claims of pan-turkists chauvinists like Alireza Asgharzadeh.

 

Thus the reason pan-Turkism chauvinists like Ali Reza Asgharzadeh write mumbo-jumbo about 6000 years of Turkish history in Iran is because they dislike Iranian civilization and its contribution to humanity.  Indeed one asks, why would a group with 6000 years of civilization be nomadic and then later on Iranized.  Indeed eyewitness accounts of the conditions of Turkish Nomads one thousand years ago shows the invalidity of the ideas of Zehtabi, Pourpirar, Asgharzadeh and other revisionists.  For example Ibn Fadlan, a 10th century Arab traveler who visited Central Asia has clearly described the conditions of Turkish nomads at that time.  Although this part will not be translated into English, the Persian readers are provided with a translation:

 

سفرنامه ابن فضلان (ترجمه سيد ابوالفضل طباطبائي، انتشارات شرق، 1345): «چون راه مزبور طي شد به قبيله اي از ترك ها به نام غزها (الغزيه) رسيديم. آنان مردمي صحرانشين هستند و خانه موئي يا سياه چادر دارند و هميشه در حركت اند... اين مردم زندگي صحرایی دارند و در رنج و مشقت به سر مي برند.در عين حال مانند الاغ گمراه اند، به خدا ايمان ندارند و فاقد عقل و شعورند و هيچ چيز را نمي پرستند. فقط بزرگان خود را ارباب مي خوانند. وقتي يكي از ايشان بخواهد با ریيس خود در كاري مشورت كند مي گويد:«اي خدا، در فلان كار چه كنم؟» ايشان در كار خويش با يكديگر مشورت مي كنند اما وقتي در امري اتفاق نمودند و روي آن تصميم گرفتند، يكي از پست ترين و فرومايه ترين آنان از ميان شان برخاسته، قرارشان را بر هم مي زند!

موضوع لواط نزد ايشان بسيار مهم است. مردي از اهل خوارزم به منطقه «گوذركين» كه جانشين پادشاه ترك است، وارد شد و چندي براي خريد گوسفند نزد دوست خود اقامت نمود. ميزبان ترك پسر بي ريشي داشت. مرد خوارزمي همچنان به او اظهار علاقه مي نمود تا او را به ميل خود حاضر و تسليم ساخت.

... فرداي آن روز با مردي از ترك ها كه بسيار زشت و بدقيافه و رذل و پليد بود و لباس ژنده اي را در بر داشت برخورديم. آن روز باران سختي ما را گرفته بود.آن مرد گفت:«بايستيد.» تمام قافله كه شامل قريب سه هزار چهارپا و پنج هزار مرد بود از حركت ايستاد.آن گاه گفت:«هيچ يك از شما حركت نكند». همگي دستور او را اطاعت نموده ايستاديم و به او گفتيم: «ما دوستان گوذركين هستيم.» او پيش آمده خنده اي كرد و گفت: «گوذركين كيست! ريدم به ريش گوذركين.» سپس گفت: «پكند». به زبان خوارزمي يعني نان. من چند گرده نان به او دادم و آن ها را گرفت وگفت: «برويد به شما رحم كردم»  ...

نزد قبيله باشقرد: اين جماعت شرورترين و كثيف‌ترين ترك‌ها و سخت‌ترين ايشان در آدم‌كشي مي‌باشند. [ناگهان مي‌بينيد] مردي مرد ديگر را به زمين انداخته سر او را مي‌بُرد و آن را برمي‌دارد و بدن‌اش را رها مي‌كند. آن‌ها ريش خود را مي‌تراشند و شپش مي‌خورند. بدين شكل كه درزهاي نيم‌تنه‌ي خود را جست‌وجو كرده، شپش‌ها را با دندان جويده، مي‌خورند … هر يك از ايشان تكه چوبي به شكل آلت مردي تراشيده و به گردن خويش مي‌آويزند و چون قصد سفر يا برخورد با دشمن كند، آن را مي‌بوسد و بر آن سجده مي‌گذارد و مي‌گويد: «خدايا با من چنين و چنين بكن!» من به ترجمان گفتم از يكي از ايشان بپرس دليل آن‌ها براي اين كار چيست و چرا اين آلت را خداي خود ساخته‌اند؟ گفت: «زيرا من از مانند آن بيرون آمده‌ام و براي خود آفريينده‌اي جز آن نمي‌شناسم»..

 

Thus falsifying the truth is a necessity for the spread of pan-Turkism chauvinism and racism.   Pan-Turkist chauvinists today have problems with not only Iranians (Kurds, Persians, Talysh, Iranian Azeris who are patriotic), but also with Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Russians, Slavs and other groups of people.  To deny the ancient Iranian civilization, pan-Turkist racists like Ali Reza Asgharzadeh have no choice but to avail themselves to the revisionist material of Purpirar in order to deny Iran’s history and the revisionist materials of Zehtabi in order to create mythical and unfounded Turkic history.  Such childish behavior will not change the truth and as shown and has just further damaged the credibility of anti-Iranian pan-Turkist racists.  Although there was never any credibility to begin with.

 

Persian language among Turkish dynasties

Due to the fact that the Turks who conquered Iran were nomadic and did not have literary language and also due to the fact that many court ministers in their courts were Iranians, the Turkic dynasties adopted the Persian language and became highly Iranized. 

 

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:  ‘’Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible.’’  (X.D. Planhol, LANDS OF IRAN in Encyclopedia Iranica)

 

According to Hodgson:

“The rise of Persian (the language) had more than purely literary consequence: it served to carry a new overall cultural orientation within Islamdom. Henceforth while Arabic held its own as the primary language of the religious disciplines and even, largely, of natural science and philosophy, Persian became, in an increasingly part of Islamdom, the language of polite culture; it even invaded the realm of scholarship with increasing effects. It was to form the chief model of the rise of still other languages. Gradually a third ‘’classical’’ tongue emerged, Turkish, whose literature was based on Persian tradition.”( Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, Volume 2: The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods (Venture of Islam, Chicago, 1974) page 293.)

Arnold J. Toynbee's assessment of the role of the Persian language is worth quoting in more detail:

‘’ In the Iranic world, before it began to succumb to the process of Westernization, the New Persian language, which had been fashioned into literary form in mighty works of art. . . gained a currency as a lingua franca; and at its widest, about the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of the Christian Era, its range in this role extended, without a break, across the face of South-Eastern Europe and South-Western Asia from the Ottoman pashalyq of Buda, which had been erected out of the wreckage of the Western Christian Kingdom of Hungary after the Ottoman victory at Mohacz in A.D. 1526, to the Muslim "successor-states" which had been carved, after the victory of the Deccanese Muslim princes at Talikota in A.D. 1565, out of the carcass of the slaughtered Hindu Empire of Vijayanagar. For this vast cul¬tural empire the New Persian language was indebted to the arms of Turkish-speaking empire-builders, reared in the Iranic tradition and therefore captivated by the spell of the New Persian literature, whose military and polit¬ical destiny it had been to provide one universal state for Orthodox Christendom in the shape of the Ottoman Empire and another for the Hindu World in the shape of the Timurid Mughal Raj. These two universal states of Iranic construction on Orthodox Christian and on Hindu ground were duly annexed, in accordance with their builders' own cultural affinities, to the original domain of the New Persian language in the homelands of the Iranic Civilization on the Iranian plateau and in the Basin of the Oxus and the Jaxartes; and in the heyday of the Mughal, Safawi, and Ottoman regimes New Persian was being patronized as the language of litterae humaniores by the ruling element over the whole of this huge realm, while it was also being employed as the official language of administration in those two-thirds of its realm that lay within the Safawi and the Mughal frontiers.’’(Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History,V, pp. 514-15)

 

E. J. W. Gibb, author of the standard A Literary History of Ottoman Poetry in six volumes, whose name has lived on in an important series of publications of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish texts, the Gibb Memorial Series. Gibb classifies Ottoman poetry between the Old School, from the fourteenth century to about the middle of the nineteenth, during which time Persian influence was dominant; and the Modern School, which came into being as a result of the Western impact. According to him in the introduction (Volume I):

‘’ the Turks very early "appropriated the entire Persian literary system down to its minute detail, and that in the same unquestioning and wholehearted fashion in which they had already accepted Islam.’’

The Saljuqs had, in the words of the same author:

‘’ attained a very considerable degree of culture, thanks entirely to Persian tutorage. About the middle of the eleventh century they [that is, the Saljuqs] had overrun Persia, when, as so often happened, the Barbarian conquerors adopted the culture of their civilized subjects. Rapidly the Seljuq Turks pushed their conquest westward, ever carrying with them Persian culture ... So, when some hundred and fifty years later Sulayman's son [the leader of the Ottomans] . . . penetrated into Asia Minor, they [the Ottomans] found that although Seljuq Turkish was the everyday speech of the people, Persian was the language of the court, while Persian literature and Persian culture reigned supreme. It is to the Seljuqs with whom they were thus fused, that the Ottomans, strictly so called, owe their literary education; this therefore was of necessity Persian as the Seljuqs knew no other. The Turks were not content with learning from the Persians how to express thought; they went to them to learn what to think and in what way to think. In practical matters, in the affairs of everyday life and in the business of government, they preferred their own ideas; but in the sphere of science and literature they went to school with the Persian, intent not merely on acquiring his method, but on entering into his spirit, thinking his thought and feeling his feelings. And in this school they continued so long as there was a master to teach them; for the step thus taken at the outset developed into a practice; it became the rule with the Turkish poets to look ever Persia-ward for guidance and to follow whatever fashion might prevail there. Thus it comes about that for centuries Ottoman poetry continued to reflect as in a glass the several phases through which that of Persia passed....So the first Ottoman poets, and their successors through many a generation, strove with all their strength to write what is little else than Persian poetry in Turkish words. But such was not consciously their aim; of national feeling in poetry they dreamed not; poetry was to them one and indivisible, the language in which it was written merely an unimportant accident.’’

 

 

Even during the Qajar era, Qajar kings praised Persian at the cost Turkish.  An example of this can be seen in the exchange between the Qajar and a poet by the name of Mo’jaz Shabestari:

 

معجز شبستری که يک شاعر ترکي‌سرا شناخته‌ای است و بين ۱۸۷۳ تا ۱۹۳۴ مي‌زيست نامه‌ای به پادشاه قجر مي‌نويسد

 

ديليم ترکی٬ سوزی ساده اوزوم صهبايه دلداده

منيم تک شاعرين البت اولار کاساد بازی

دونن شعر یله بیر نامه آپار دیم شاه ایرانه

دیدی ترکی نمی‌دانم٬ مرا تو بچه پنداری؟

اوزی ترک اوغلی ترک او اما دیر ترکی جهالتدور

خدایا مضمحل قیل تختدن بو آل قاجاری

 

ترجمه

 

 

زبانم ترکی٬گفتارم ساده است٬ خودم دلداده (عاشق) هستم

 متاع این چنین شاعری البته خریداری ندارد

یعنی کسی از اهل ادب دنبال شعر و ادب ترکی نمیرفت

دوش به محضر شه٬ نامه‌آی به شعر ترکی بردم

بگفتا: ترکی نمی‌دانیم٬ مرا تو بچه پنداری؟

ترکست و ترک‌زاده٬ گوید ترکیست جهالت

خدایا مضمحل گردن تاج و تخت آل قاجار را

 

Thus the Qajar kings considered Turkish to be Jehalat (ignorance).  Therefore the role of new Persian being the national language of Iranians was initiated with the Iranian Samanid and Saffarid dynasties.  In Western Iran too, the native Kurdish dynasties like those of Shaddadid, Rawwadid and the Persianized dynasty of the Shirvananshahs (these were originally Arabs of the ‘Azd tribe who intermarried with Iranian dynasties) also heavily supported new Persian.  After this brief period of Iranian rule, the invasion of Turkic nomads did not change this heritage.  This has partly to due with the fact that the majority of the population under the rule of the invaders were Iranians (Iranian speaking with a an old national heritage dating back at least to Sassanid times as shown below).  The other reason as mentioned before was that the Turkish nomads did not have a high culture (Tourkhan Gandjei, BSOAS, University of London, Vol. 49, No. 1) and many of the officials in their court were Iranians.  Having Iranian officials again was not by choice, but by necessity, since Iranians had administrative experience in running a country.  It should be noted that some of these dynasties, specially the Seljuqs, were regarded highly by Iranians, especially Iranians who were Sunni Hanafite Muslims.  Thus it was not orientalists that gave Iranians a cultural advantage over Turks as pan-turkists like Alireza Asgharzadeh claim throughout their book.  In reality, it was the robustness of Iranian culture in resisting the nomads and Iranizing their culture.  This fact upsets pan-Turkist racists like Alireza Asgharzadeh.

 

Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan during Ghaznavids

 

An important epoch of the history of Iran and Azerbaijan is the Oghuz attack on Western Iran, specially the areas of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan and Caucus.  The terrifying massacres committed by these bands of Oghuz Turks against native Iranians has been documented by different historians.

C.E. Bosworth gives an overview of the description of the Kurdish Rawwadid dynasty and the Oguz attack during their reign:

 

The Rawwadids (latterly the form "Rawad" is commoner in the sources) were another product of the upsurge of the mountain peoples of northern Iran; their domain was Azarbaijan, and particularly Tabriz. Strictly speaking, the Rawwadid family was of Azdl Arab origin, but by the 4th/10th century they were accounted Kurdish. At the opening of the 'Abbasid period Rawwad b. Muthanna had held a fief which included Tabriz. Over the course of the next two centuries his descendants became thoroughly Kurdicized, and the "Rawwadi Kurds" emerged with Iranian names, although the local poet Qatran (d. c. 465/1072) still praised them for their Arab ancestry. Early in the 4th/10th century the Sajid line of Arab governors in Azarbaijan collapsed, and the region became politically and socially disturbed. A branch of the Musafirids of Tarum first emerged there, but despite Buyid help the Musafirid Ibrahim b. Marzban was deposed in c. 370/ 980-1, probably by the Rawwadid Abul-Haija Husain b, Muhammad (344-78/955-88); certainly it was the Rawwadids who succeeded to all of the Musafirid heritage in Azarbaijan.

 

The most prominent member of the dynasty in the 5th/nth century was Vahsudan b. Mamlan b. Abfl-Haija (1019-54). It was in his reign that the Oghuz invaded Azarbaijan. These were some of the first Turkmen to come westwards, being the so-called " 'Iraqis', or followers of Arslan Israeli, expelled from Khurasan by Mahmud of Ghazna (see pp. 58 and 40-1). Vahsudan received them favourably in 419/1028, hoping to use them as auxiliaries against his many enemies, such as the Christian Armenians and Georgians and the rival Muslim dynasty of Shaddadids. He even married the daughter of an Oghuz chief, but it still proved impossible to use the anarchic nomads as a reliable military force.   In 429/1037 they plundered Maragheh and massacred large numbers of Hadhbani Kurds.  Vahsudan allied with his nephew, the chief of the Hadhbanis, Abul-Haija' b. Rahib al-Daula, against the Turkmen; many of them now migrated southwards to­wards Iraq, and in 432/1040-1. Vahsudan devised a stratagem by which several of the remaining leaders were killed. The rest of the Oghuz in Azarbaijan then fled to the territory of the Hakkari Kurds south-west of Lake Van. Vahsudan's capital, Tabriz, was destroyed by an earth­quake in 434/1042, and fearing that the Saljuqs would take advantage of his resulting weakness, he moved to one of his fortresses; but the city was soon rebuilt, and Nasir-i Khusrau found it populous and flourishing. (C.E. Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1200) in Camb. Hist. Iran V)

 

 

 

The Persian poet Qatran Tabrizi was alive at that time and has described the unruliness and massacares commited by the nomadic Oghuz tribes.  At the time of Qatran Tabrizi, the inhabits spoke a Persian dialect slightly distinct from the Dari Persian dialect of Khorasan.  Naser Khosrow, himself from Khorasan mentions the slight dialect differences between the two places.  This difference is also examined in this article:

دقیقی، زبان دری و لهجه ی آذری

دکتر جلال متینی

 

The slight dialect different is mentioned by the following verse of Qatran where he contrasts Parsi with Dari (Persian of Khorasan which through time became the main medium of communication after Islam):

 

 

در بيتي از قطران تبريزي هم كه «پارسي» را در برابر دري آورده، پارسي در مورد زبان آذربايجان به كار رفته، در برابر دري خراسان:
بلبل به سان مطرب بيدل فراز گل//
گه پارسي نوازد، گاهي زند دري//

 

قطران تبريزی نيزدر بسياری از چکامه هايش ترکان را شايسته سرزنش دانسته و انان را سخت نکوهش کرده است .

نمونه هايی از ان ابيات در ذيل می ايد :

اگر بگذشت از جيحــون گروه ترکمانـــان را // ملک محمـــــــود کــاو را بود زابل کان در سنجر

....

زمانی تازش ايشان به شروان اندرون بودی // زمانـــی حملـــه ايشان بــــه اذربايگــــان انــدر

نبود از تازش ايشان کسی بر چيز خود ايمن // نبود از حمله ايشان کسی بر مال خود سرور (شهرياران گمنام، 1377، ص۱۶۰)

شده چون خانه زنبور با غم از ترکان // همی خلند به فرمان ما چو زنبورم (همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در يکی از سروده هايش به هنگام ستايش يکی از فرمانروايان بومی اذربايجان عامل عدم پيشرفت کار او را حضور ترکان برشمرده است :

گر نبودی آفت ترکان به گيتی در پديد // بستدی گيتی همه چون خسروان باستان ( همان، ص۱۹۷)

قطران در بدگويی و مذمت ترک تباران چنان سخن گفته که حتی انان را موجب ويرانی ايران زمين برشمرده و اين مفهوم به روشنی از بيت زير که در ستايش اميری از اميران اذربايجان سرايش يافته برمی ايد :

اگر چه داد ايران را بلای ترک ويرانی // شود از عدلش ابادان چون يزدانش کند ياری ( همان، ص۱۹۷)

اين شاعر اذربايجانی در يکی ديگر از چکامه هايش که در قالب قصيده سروده است ترکان را خونخوار و جرار و غدار و مکار خوانده است :

کمــــر بستند بهــــر کيــن شه ترکان پيکاری // همـــه يکـرو به خونخواری همه يکدل به جراری

يکی ترکان مسعودی به قصد خيل مسعودان // نهاده تن به کين کاری و دل داده به خونخواری

....

چــه ارزد غـدر با دولت، چه ارزد مکـر با دانش // اگـرچـه کــــار ترکان هست غــداری و مکــاری( همان، ص۱۷۲)

As can be seen by the above, Qatran complains heavily about the plundering, destruction and savagery of the nomadic Turks who ravaged and plundered Azerbaijan.  He calls these nomads Khoonkhaar (blood suckers), bringers of Viran (ruin) to Iran, kin-kaar (workers of hatred), covenant breakers (Ghadar), Makar (Charlatan and deceiver).

Qatran Tabrizi also praises the Sassanids heavily and thus Qatran is an example of the Iranian culture of  the region and the resistance of Iranians to Turks. 


این جهان بودست دایم ملک ساسانیان                  خواست سالارش خدا در ملک ساسان کند
نیست کست در گوهر ساسانیان چون لشکری     تا پس آن چون نیاکان شاهی ایران کند
همچو افريدون بگيرد ملك عالم سر بسر               و آنگهي تدبير ملك خيل فرزندان كند
روم و گرجستان به فرمان منوچهر آورد                  هند و تركستان بزير حكم نوشروان آورد
او بتخت ملک ايران بر نشيند در سطخر              کهترين فرزند خود را مهتر آران کند
تا همی فرمان داور خاک را ساکن کند                 تا همی تقدير يزدان چرخ را گردان کند
ملک او را از زوال ايمن همی گردون کند                جان او را از فنا ایمن همی یزدان کند
شاد بنشيند بکام دل بر ايوان شهی                     وز فروغ روی خويش آراسته فرمان کند

 

Indeed Qatran was soaked and emerged in his ancient Iranian culture:

 

نخستین سند ادبی ارتباط آذربایجان و شاهنامه

سجاد آیدئلو

 

Another example of Persian/Iranian who fought against the half Turkish Caliph Muta’sim and his Turkish soldiers is Babak Khorramdin and this will be discussed in a later secion.

 

Despite the claim of pan-Turkists like Chehregani that Azerbaijanis are “pure Oghuz Turks” or the likes of other pan-turkists like Alireza Asgharzadeh who completely disregard the historical ties of Azerbaijan with the rest of Iran (for example Qatran Tabrizi), it will be shown that Azerbaijanis are not “pure Oghuz Turks”.

 

 

Negative view of Turks by the Ottomans

 

During the Ottoman era, peasants and villagers were called Turks, while nobles were called Ottomans.  For the Ottomans, the term Turk meant peasant and uncivilized.

 

Ziya Gokalp a prominent pan-Turkist writes:

 

http://www.gencturkhaber.com/v1/haber.php?id=110106

 

Bu konuda Ziya Gökalp’ın ifadesi çok daha serttir, çünkü ona göre Osmanlı her zaman Türk’e yönelik olarak “eşek Türk” sözünü kullanırmış (Gökalp, 1990: 33, 43)

 

Ziya Gokalp's saying about this(negative view about Turks in Ottomon empire)is more fierce. He thought that every time the Ottoman's wanted to mention the Turks, they used the title "donkey Turks".

 

 

In the book Organised Crime In Europe: Concepts, Patterns and Control Policies in the European Union and Beyond By Cyrille Fijnaut, Letizia Paoli(Published 2004, Springer, pg 206), this matter is also pointed to:

 

“The third structural problem had to do with the ethnic hierarchy that prevailed throughout the empire (Ottomon empire). In the Seljuq periods, the authorities viewed Georgians. Iranians and Slavs as the top ranking peoples, and Turks and Turkmens as the lowest.  Turkish was a language only to be spoken by people of humble descent, and it is not difficult to find offensive and racist comments in the writings of Seljuq authors: 'Bloodthirsty Turks [...] If they get the chance, they plunder, but as soon as they see the enemy coming, off they run'.' Matters were not much different in the Ottoman period, even though the empire was governed by a small elite at the court, which was Turkish itself. According to Cetin Yetkin, one of the major Turkish authors on the Seljuq and Ottoman periods. 'In the Ottoman Empire, though Turks were a "minority", they did not have the same rights as the other minorities' (Yerkin, 1974: 175). In fact the term 'Turk' was a pejorative. Ottoman historian Naima, who also wrote a book about the Anatolian rebels, uses the following terms for the Turks: Tiirk-i bed-lika (Turk with an ugly face), nadan Turk (ignorant Turk) and etrak-i bi-idrak (Turk who knows nothing).”

 

 

According to Turkish history Handan Nezir Akmeshe, who describes the attempt to ingrain self-conscioussness to Turks of the Ottomon empire prior to WWI  ( Handan Nezir Akmeşe, The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I, I.B.Tauris, 2005. pg 50): (One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of die contrast between the non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and "the poor Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an old-fashioned plough."  Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and used to make fun of each other, calling themselves “donkey Turk”)

 

According to Alfred J. Rieber and Alexei Miller( Alfred J. Rieber, Alexei Miller,Imperial Rule, Central European University Press, 2005. pg 33: (In the Ottoman Em­pire the very name 'Turk' was even rather insulting and was used to denote backwoodsmen, bumpkins, illiterate peasants in Anatolia ' etraki-bi-idrak in an Ottoman (Arabic) play on words 'the stupid Turk'.)

 

Ozay Mehmet in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery mentions,(Ozay Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery, Routledge, 1990. pg 115) (The ordinary Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: ‘’in the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages.’’(Lewis 1968: 1)  In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century:  The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Lon­doner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended. (Davey 1907: 209((

 

 

 

An Ottomon poet by the name of Faqiri writes:

ندر کملر درر بلد نمی رومی

قیل حاصل ظرافته علومی

کمی منشی در ایله کمی شاعر

ظرافتدن قلرلر سحر ساهر

ولی ایتدو کجه صحبت اتفاقی

چله لر بر بوینه نفاقی

 

Translation: Do you know who in this world is a Turk?

One that wears a peaseants clothing and hat

He does not know religion nor faith nor virtue

He does not wash his face, does not wash himself for prayer or cleanliness

The people of religion have this expression:

O God, please protect us from oppressive and pain brining shepeard

 

The phrases like “Stupid Turk” were common during the Ottomon era.  An excellet overview of the viewpoint of Ottomons on Turks and Turkish language is given here:

 

نظریات عثمانیان درباره ترک و زبان ترکی

دکتر فیروز منصوری

 

 

Despite the false claim by Alireza Asgharzadeh that negative views on Turks is due to Rezashah!, we can clearly see that Seljuqs, Qajars, Ottomons, Persian poets from Azerbaijan like Qatran (prior to the linguistic Turkification of Tabriz) and many others had a negative view.  Even the phrase “Donkey Turk” which Alireza Asgharzadeh tries to ascribe to the Pahlavid era had wide currency in the Ottomon empire.  Of course such negative views were expressed during their own time due to either nomadic invasion of Turks or that the Ottomons/Seljuqs adopted Iranian or other cultures and disassociated themselves from Turks for variety of reasons.  Either way, by trying to blame the Pahlavid era for the negative views expressed for more than a thousand years, Alireza Asgharzadeh and other pan-turkists like him are proving their intellectual dishonesty.  The negative historical views expressed above about Turks in their own historical era are neither condoned nor condemned by this author but just demonstrated for the sake of historical accuracy.  Simply in their own time, given the destruction wrought by Turkish nomads (who linguistically Turkified the region without that much of genetic influence) on variety of Iranian civilizations (Khorasan, Khwarzm, Soghd, Azerbaijan..) such negative views arose a they are demonstrated through the above historical records.  Although it should be mentioned that positive of view of some Turks like the Seljuqids can be seen by some Iranians and this could have religious reason as many Iranian Sunnis supported the Seljuqids.  Also at least from the time of Shahnameh, central Asiatic Turks who have been described as “tang-cheshm” (literally:narrow-eyes) have been praised for their beauty.  In Sufic Persian poetry, the term Turk and Hindu have gone together many times where the most common symbolic meaning is the contrast of light and dark.  Nevertheless when it comes to the actual material destruction brought by Turks, Persian poets, Seljuqids, Ottomons, and others had an extremely negative view.  Thus Alireza Asgharzadeh conveniently ignores this epoch of history in order to initiate its beginning to 1925!

 

 

Are Azeris Turks?

 

The definition of Turk is not clear (Someone who is a Turkic speaker? Or has Turkic history? Or his ancestors were originally Turkic? Or was Turkified?) but what is clear is that prior to the Turkification of Iranian Azerbaijan, the language of the area was Iranic dialects.  Sufficient sources for this has already been brought from world class scholars like Vladimir Minorsky.  The reader can also refer to some of the samples of the pre-Turkic language of Azerbaijan that has been collected here:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/languages/Azari/azarimain.htm

 

Some new genetic studies (2007 March 2) suggest that recent erosion of human population structure might not be as important as previously thought, and overall genetic structure of human populations may not change with the immigration events and thus in the Azerbaijani case; the Azeris of Azerbaijan republic most of all genetically resemble to other Caucasian people like Armenians Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus and people the Azerbaijan region of Iran to other Iranians Is urbanisation scrambling the genetic structure of human populations?

 

According to a genetic study done on Yakuts of Siberia

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12942638&query_hl=3

 

In total, 67 haplotypes of 14 haplogroups were detected. Most (91.6%) haplotypes belonged to haplogroups A, B, C, D, F, G, M*, and Y, which are specific for East Eurasian ethnic groups; 8.4% haplotypes represented Caucasian haplogroups H, HV1, J, T, U, and W.

Yakuts showed the lowest genetic diversity (H = 0.964) among all Turkic ethnic groups.

Phylogenetic analysis testified to a common genetic substrate of Yakuts, Mongols, and Central Asian (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uigur) populations.

 

In Persian literature, when Turks are described, they are described with the physical feature of the Turks of Central Asia and Yakuts.  For example this statue of an ancient Turkish King of the Gok-Turks Kul Tegin exemplifies this http://www.ulkuocaklari.org.tr/kulturedebiyat/grafik/kultigin.jpg

 

 

http://www.ulkuocaklari.org.tr/kulturedebiyat/grafik/kultigin.jpg

 

Here is a picture of Seljuq Prince:

The image “http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/7b/Seljuk_prince.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


حافظ:
به تنگ چشمي ان ترك لشكري نازم**************كه حمله بر من درويش يك قبا آورد

نظامي:
سرآينده ترك با چشم تنگ**************فروهشته گيسو به گيسوي چنگ

مولوي:
ترك خنديدن گرفت از داستان**********چشم تنگش گشت بسته آن زمان

مولوي:
دو چشم ترك خطا را چه ننگ از تنگي*********چه عار دارد سياح جهان از اين عوري

گفت كاي تنگ چشم تاتاري******صيد ما را به چشم مي ناري؟

قاصرات الطرف في حجب الخيام************حال تركان است گويي والسلام
............
..........
.........
تنگ چشمانند ليكن دوربين***********خوبرويانند ليكن خويش كام

سنايي غزنوي:

مي نبيند آن سفيهاني كه تركي كرده اند****همچو چشم تنگ تركان گور ايشان تنگ و تار

سنايي غزنوي:
باش تا چون چشم تركان تنگ گردد گور تو***********گر چه خود را كور سازي در مسافت صد كري



خاطرات نجم الدين رازي معروف به دايه
وي يکي از رهبران مهم صوفيه و نثر نويس پخته اين روزگار است که تا سال 653 زنده بوده است. او شاگرد نجم الدين کبري است که در حمله مغولان به خوارزم در ميدان جنگ کشته شده است. مهم ترين اثر وي، کتاب تصوف مرصاد العباد است که سلوک عرفاني را به زبان پارسي دري شرح داده است. دربخشي از اي متن به حمله ترک و مغول و گريز خود اشاره کرده است. با هم اين بخش را مي خوانيم:

«در تاريخ شهور سنۀ سبع و عشر و ستمائه (617) لشکر مخذول ِ کفار تتار استيلا يافت بر آن ديار ، و آن فتنه و فساد و قتل و اسر و هدم و حرق که از آن ملاعين ظاهر گشت، در هيچ عصر و ديار کفر و اسلام کس نشان نداده است و در هيچ تاريخ نيامده الا انچه خواجه(پيغمبر) عليه الصلوة و السلام از فتنه هاي آخر الزمان خبر باز داده است و فرموده: لا تَقومُ السٌاعة حتي تُقاتِلوا التٌُرک صغارَ الاعين حُمرَ الوجوه ذلف الانوف کان وجوههم المجان المطرقة ، صفت اين کفار ملاعين کرده است و فرموده که ، قيامت برنخيزد تا آنگاه که شما با ترکان قتال نکنيد، قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده. و بعد از آن فرموده است: و يکثر الهرج، قيل: يا رسول الله! ما الهرج؟ قال: القتل ، القتل. فرمود که قتل بسيار شود. به حقيقت، اين واقعه آن است که خواجه عليه الصلوة و السلام به نور نبوت پيش از ششصد و اند سال باز ديده بود. قتل ازين بيشتر چگونه بود که از يک شهر ري که مولد و منشـأ اين ضعيف است و ولايت آن قياس کرده اند ، کما بيش پانصد هزار آدمي به قتل آمده و اسير گشته. و فتنه و فساد آن ملاعين بر جملگي اسام و اساميان از آن زيادت است که در حٌيز عبارت گنجد... عاقبت چون بلا به غايت رسيد و محنت به نهايت و کار به جان رسيد و کارد به استخوان...اين ضعيت از سهر همدان که مسکن بود به شب بيرون آمد با جمعي از درويشان و عزيزان در معرض خطري هرچ تمام تر ، در شهور سنۀ ثمان عشر و ستمائه به راه اربيل و بر عقب اين فقير خبر چنان رسيد كه كفار ملاعين..به شهر همدان آمدند و حصار دادند و اهل شهر به قدر و وسع بكوشيدند و چون طاقت مقاومت نماند - كفار دست يافتند و شهر بستند و خلق بسيار كشند و بسي اطفال را و عورات را اسير بردند و خرابي تمام كردند و اقرباي اين ضعيف را كه به شهر بودند٬ بيشتر شهيد كردند.

باريد به باغ ما تگرگي
وز گلبن ما نماند برگي
»

ملاحظه کنيد:
«قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده»

 

Furthermore, scholars today agree that Azerbaijani’s are Turkified Iranian speakers and the Oguz Turks did not change the genetic makeup of the region.

 

 

 

According to the eminent historian Vladimir Minorsky:

 In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the G̲h̲uzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azarbaijan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Azarbaijan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone.

(Minorsky, V.; Minorsky, V. "( Azarbaijan). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill)

According to Professor. Richard Frye:

The Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan (q.v.) are mainly descended from the earlier Iranian speakers, several pockets of whom still exist in the region. A massive migration of Oghuz Turks in the 11th and 12th centuries not only Turkified Azerbaijan but also Anatolia.

(R.N. Frye, Peoples of Iran in Encyclopaedia Iranica)

According to The Languages and Literatures of the Non-Russian Peoples of the Soviet Union:

The language spoken prior to the Turkic people's coming to Azarbayjan was Persian in its diverse forms: Ghillani, Kurdi, and Dari.

(The Languages and Literatures of the Non-Russian Peoples of the Soviet Union By Canada Council, George Thomas, McMaster University Interdepartmental Committee on Communist and East European Affairs, published in 1977, page 45)

 

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:

Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined. The few researches undertaken (Planhol, 1960) demonstrate the indisputable predominance of Iranian tradition in agricultural techniques (irrigation, rotation systems, terraced cultivation) and in several settlement traits (winter troglodytism of people and livestock, evident in the widespread underground stables). The large villages of Iranian peasants in the irrigated valleys have worked as points for crystallization of the newcomers even in the course of linguistic transformation; these places have preserved their sites and transmitted their knowledge. The toponymy, with more than half of the place names of Iranian origin in some areas, such as the Sahand, a huge volcanic massif south of Tabriz, or the Qara Dagh, near the border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness to this continuity. The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages. It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants.

…

Thus Turkish nomads, in spite of their deep penetration throughout Iranian lands, only slightly influenced the local culture. Elements borrowed by the Iranians from their invaders were negligible.

(X.D. Planhol, LANDS OF IRAN in Encyclopedia Iranica)

According to Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski:

The original Persian population became fused with the Turks, and gradually the Persian language was supplanted by a Turkic dialect that evolved into the distinct Azerbaijani language. The process of Turkification was long and complex, sustained by successive waves of incoming nomads from Central Asia

(Colliers Encyclopedia Vol. 3).

 

According to Encyclopedia Britannica:

The Azerbaijani are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries.

(Azerbaijani." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 5 Apr. 2007)

 

According to Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopedique Larousse:

Azeris are descendants of older Iranophone inhabitants of the Eastern Transcaucasia, turkicized since 11th century.

(French: “Larousse Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary”), French encyclopaedia published in Paris (1982–85) by Librairie Larousse and based on earlier editions of Larousse encyclopaedias dating back to the Grand Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle (“Great Universal Dictionary of the 19th Century”), inaugurated by the editor and lexicographer Pierre Larousse (1817–75).)

 

Professor Peter Golden who has written the most comprehensive book on Turkic people, in his book (An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz (1992)).  Professor Golden confirms that the Medes were Iranians and Iranian languages like Talyshi/Tati speakers are being absorbed into Turkish speakers.  Considering the Turkic penetration in the caucus and the Turkification of Iranian Azerbaijan, Professor Golden states in pg 386 of his book:

 

Turkic penetration probably began in the Huunic era and its aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era, although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times. Sumer, placing a slightly different emphasis on the data (more correct in my view), posts three periods which Turkicization took place: Seljuk, Mongol and Post-Mongol(Qara Qoyunlu, Aq Qoyunlu and Safavid). In the first two, Oguz Turkic tribes advanced or were driven to the western frontiers (Anatolia) and Northern Azarbaijan(Arran, the Mugan steppe). In the last period, the Turkic elements in Iran(derived from Oguz, with lesser admixture of Uygur, Qipchaq, Qaluq and other Turks brought to Iran during the Chinggisid era, as well as Turkicized Mongols) were joined now by Anatolian Turks migrating back to Iran. This marked the final stage of Turkicization. Although there is some evidence for the presence of Qipchaqs among the Turkic tribes coming to this region, there is little doubt that the critical mass which brought about this linguistic shift was provided by the same Oguz-Turkmen tribes that had come to Anatolia. The Azeris of today, are an overwhelmingly sedentary, detribalized people. Anthropologically, they are little distinguished from the Iranian neighbors.

 

 

 

 

Even the US congress studies of Iran concludes:

 

The life styles of urban Azarbaijanis do not differ from those of Persians, and there is considerable intermarriage among the upper classes in cities of mixed populations. Similarly, customs among Azarbaijani villagers do not appear to differ markedly from those of Persian villagers.

 

Thus the mainstream Academic opinion with regards to Azerbaijanis is that they are Turkic speaking but culturally and antrophologically they differ little from other Iranians.  And indeed, if we take the claim that Azerbaijanis are Turks like Asgharzadeh and Beraheni and other pan-turkists would want us to believe, then the story of Persian oppression of Azerbaijanis is one of the biggest jokes in history given the constant and continuous destruction brought by Turkish nomads (should not be confused with Azerbaijanis) on Iranian lands and also the linguistic Turkification of a previously Iranic speaking area (including Azerbaijan).

 

 

Assimilation and Pan-Turkism in the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey

 

Two of the countries highly admired by Alireza Nazmi Afshar and also Alireza Asgharzadeh (who writes for semi-nationalist magazines in the republic of Azerbaijan and constantly criticizes Iran) are the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey.  Thus we are forced to examine the human rights of these countries.

 

In the case of Turkey, the Armenian Genocide, the Greek Genocide and the Kurdish Genocide are well known to academia.  On the Armenian Genocide, Iranian writer Mohammad Hossein Jamalzadeh provides an eyewitness account:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Armenian/jamal.gif

 

The republic of Azerbaijan on the other hand is less well known due to its minor size as well as its less important position.  Nevertheless pan-Turkism and assimilation of Iranian speaking and Caucasian speaking minorities has been a key policy in the last 90 years.

 

Svante, Cornell, who is pro-Azerbaijan republic source states:

In Azerbaijan, the Azeri presently make up over 90 per cent; Dagestani peoples form over 3 per cent, and Russians 2.5 per cent. 6 These figures approximate the official position; however, in reality the size of the Dagestani Lezgin community in Azerbaijan is unknown, officially put at 200,000 but according to Lezgin sources substantially larger. The Kurdish population is also substantial, according to some sources over 10 per cent of the population; in the south there is a substantial community of the Iranian ethnic group, of Talysh, possibly some 200,000 –400,000 people.

…

Where as officially the number of Lezgins registered as such in Azerbaijan is around 180,000 the Lezgins claim that the number of Lezgins registerd in Azerbaijan is much higher than this figure, some accounts showing over 700,000 Lezgins in Azerbaijan. These figures are denied by the Azerbaijani government, but in private many Azeris acknowledge the fact that the Lezgins – for that matter the Talysh or the Kurdish-population of Azerbaijan is far higher than the official figures...

For the Lezgins in Azerbaijan, the existence of ethnic kin in Dagestan is of high importance. Nariman Ramazanov, one of the Lezgin political leaders, has argued that whereas the Talysh, Tats, and Kurds of Azerbaijan lost much of their language and ethnic identity, the Lezgins have been able to preserve theirs by their contacts with Dagestan, where there was naturally no policy of Azeri assimilation. …. The Lezgin problem remains one of the most acute and unpredictable of the contemporary Caucasus. This said, the conditions for a peaceful resolution of the conflict are present. No past conflict nor heavy mutual prejudices make management of the conflict impossible; nor has ethnic mobilization taken place to a significant extent. Hence there are no actual obstacles to a de-escalation of the conflict at the popular level. At the political level, however, the militancy of Sadval and the strict position of the Azeri government give cause for worry, and may prevent the settlement of the conflict through a compromise such as a freetrading zone. The Lezgin problem needs to be monitored and followed in closer detail, and its continued volatility is proven by the tension surrounding a recent Lezgin congress in Dagestan.

(Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers : A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus . Richmond, Surrey, , GBR: Curzon Press Limited, 2000.)

 

According to Professor Douglass Blum:

Finally, Azerbaijan presents a somewhat more ambiguous picture. It boasts a well-established official national identity associated with claims of a unique heritage based on an improbable blend of Turkism, Zoroastrianism, moderate Islam, and its historical function as 'bridge' between Asia and Europe along the Silk Road. At the same time there remain strong local allegiances and ethnic distinctions, including submerged tensions between Azeris, Russians, and also Lezgins and Talysh (besides Armenians), as well as stubborn religious cleavages (roughly two thirds of the Islamic population is Shi'ite one third Sunni). This persistence of parochialism is hardly surprising inasmuch as there has been little historical basis for national identity formation among Azeri elites, who were significantly affected by russification and are still generally lukewarm in their expressions of pan-Turkism.

 

)Doِuglass Blum, ‘’Contested national identities and weak state structures in Eurasia ’’(pp in Sean Kay, S. Victor Papacosma, James Sperling, Limiting institutions?: The Challenge of Eurasian Security Governance, Manchester University Press, 2003.).

 

According to Thomas de Waal:

Smaller indigenous Caucasian nationalities, such as Kurds, also complained of assimilation. In the 1920s, Azerbaijan's Kurds had had their own region, known as Red Kurdistan, to the west of Nagorny Karabakh; in 1930, it was abolished and most Kurds were progressively recategorized as "Azerbaijani." A Kurdish leader estimates that there are currently as many as 200,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan, but official statistics record only about 12,000.

…

Although there are no discriminatory policies against them on the personal level, the Lezghins campaign for national-cultural autonomy is vehemently rejected by the Azerbaijani authorities. Daghestani Lezghins fear that the continued existence of their ethnic kin in Azerbaijan as a distinct community is threatened by what they consider Turkic nationalistic policies of forceful assimilation. Inter-ethnic tensions between Lezghins and Azeris spilled over from Azerbaijan to Daghestan also. They started in 1992 when the Popular Front came to power in Azerbaijan, but reached a peak in mid-1994, the time of heavy losses on the Karabakh front. In May that year violent clashes occurred in Derbent (Daghestan), and in June in the Gussary region of Azerbaijan.

 (Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. , New York: New York University Press, 2003)

 

 

According to the 1998 book “Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe:

In 1993 there was an attempt officially to restore the Latin script; very few people advocated the Arabic script. Kryzi and Khinalug speakers, as well as most Tsakhurs, are bilingual and tend to assimilate with the Azeris. The same is true of the Tat speakers, and slightly less about the Talysh. At least there is no official recognition, teaching or publishing in these languages in any form. Lezghins in Azerbaijan are struggling very determinedly for their linguistic revival, but with little success. Generally there is a prevailing policy of forceful assimilation of all minorities, including the Talysh, Tat, Kurds and Lezgins. There is little or no resistance to assimilation from the Kryzi, Khinalug, Tsakhurs or Tat, and not much resistance from the Talysh. There are some desperate efforts of resistance from the Udin, stubborn resistance from the Kurds, and an extremely active struggle from the Lezgins, who want to separate Lezgin populated districts both from Dagestan and Azerbaijan in order to create an autonomous republic with Lezgin as the state language.( Christina Bratt (EDT) Paulston, Donald Peckham (eds.), Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe, Multilingual Matters publisher, 1998. pg 106)

 

 

According to  Hema Kotecha:

 

The suppression of Talysh identity (predominant in the south) during the Soviet period led to a situation in which the Talysh ethnicity is unquantifiable (yet the population with the largest growth rate in the country). This is also partly due to a reluctance to claim Talysh identity (influenced by a stigma against publicly pronouncing non-Azerbaijani identity) and the diminishing use of Talysh language, except in places which are relatively remote and unintegrated. Nationalists seem fairly marginalised.

 

...

The identification of people with their Talysh ethnicity was strongly suppressed under the Soviets, however, an apparently small cadre of so-called ‘nationalists’ seek to preserve and re-introduce the Talysh language and are demanding ‘cultural rights’.

The Talysh language is Indo-Persian; ‘Talysh people’ cover a region straddling the Iranian border. According to the Talysh Cultural Centre in Lenkoran, 60% of Masalli is Talysh, only two villages in Lenkoran are Turkic, Astara is entirely Talysh and in Lerik only two villages are ‘Turkic’. There are also several Talysh-speaking settlements in Baku and on the Absheron peninsula as in the 19th century they migrated for employment in the oil industry and fisheries (according to the Lenkoran Talysh Cultural Centre a third of Sumgait is also Talysh).

The ‘territory’ on which the Talysh are considered indigenous is described by one website as bounded by the river Viliash in the north, the river Sefidrud in the south and the west frontier, the Talysh mountains. They also state that the Talysh came under Turkish influence during the Middle Ages, but established a khanate (presumably headed by a Talysh) in the 17th century, with the capital first in Astara and later in Lenkoranon territory that was later divided along the Arexes between Russia and Iran in the early 19th century. In 1918 Lenkoran was the centre of a Russian military base which was created separate from the rest of the country on the sensitive border with Iran. Those who speak of ‘separatism’ describe this as its first instance, as the first Russian-sponsored autonomous region.

In the early Soviet period there were Talysh-medium schools, a newspaper called ‘Red Talysh’, and several hundred Talysh language books published. By the end of the 1930s these schools closed and the ethnicity did not appear in official statistics; nationality was officially ‘Azerbaijani’. Representatives of the Talysh intelligentsia that were repressed (as were many through the Soviet Union) are remembered.   During Elchibey’s short presidency each ‘rayon’ had its own Talysh cultural centre which are now almost all dissolved.

....

 

 

According to a 1926 census, there were 77,039 Talysh in Azerbaijan SSR.   From 1959 to 1989, the Talysh were not included as a separate ethnic group in any census, but rather they were included as part of the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijani's, although the Talysh speak an Iranian language. In 1999, the Azerbaijani government claimed there were only 76,800 Talysh in Azerbaijan, but this is believed to be an under-representation given the problems with registering as a Talysh. Some claim that the population of the Talysh inhabiting the southern regions of Azerbaijan is 500,000.

 

 

(Hema Kotecha, Islamic and Ethnic Identities in Azerbaijan: Emerging trends and tensions, OSCE, Baku, July 2006

http://www.osce.org/documents/ob/2006/08/23087_en.pdf)

 

 

 

It is very interesting to note that the republic of Azerbaijan claims the number of Talysh today is around 80,000 which is exactly like the 77,039 of 1926!  There are really two options to describe this situation.  A) Either the republic of Azerbaijan is lying about its census.  B) The Talysh have been forcefully assimilated during the USSR and post-USSR era.  The above report also contains information on Lezgins.

 

 

Professor. Vartan Gregorian, a well recognized academic has given a detail

 

 

سرنوشت تلخ تالشي ها در آذربايجان شوروي

ادغام داوطلبانه! يا تقلب و تزوير

اثر: وارطان گريگوريان

 

He mentions that in 1931, the number of Talysh in the official census (excluding Lenkoran which is heavily populated by Talysh) was 89,398.  One wonders how is there less Talysh today officially in the republic of Azerbaijan than 1931!! 

 

Tadeusz Swietochowski, a more pro-Azerbaijan republic source claims:

“TALYSHIS.
An ethnic group inhabiting the southeastern border area of Azerbaijan and northern Iran, estimated at 250,000. Members speak a language (Talyshi) that belongs to the northwestern group of Iranian languages and has several dialects. Almost all of the Talyshis living in Azerbaijan speak Azeri as well, which is their literary language. They are predominantly Shi'ite in religion. Today the Talyshis have largely been assimilated into the Azeri population. In the post-Soviet period the Talysh People's Party headed by Ali Akram Gumbatov raised demands for autonomy and federal restructuring of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In support of its claims, the party began to organize armed squads. It ceased its activities after Haidar Aliyev came to power, and Gambatov joined the Azeri émigré politicians in Moscow.”

(Tadeusz Swietochowski and Brian C. Collins.  Historical dictionary of Azerbaijan.  Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 1999.)

 

 

 

It should be noted that according to the Golestan-e-Aram, a 19th century book written in transcaucasia, Shirvan and its surrounding villages were mainly Persian speaking speaking the Persian dialect of Tati.

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/geography/azararan/Azarbaijankojastaliabdoli.htm

 

Yet today the number of Tati speakers is estimated at 10,000 officially. 

 

The Karabagh conflict (without taking sides or blaming any sides) shows that the republic of Azerbaijan has major ethnic problems.  The conflict has recently spilled over into distortion and removal of sentences from historical texts:

 

See:

http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/sas/bour.html

 

(George A. Bournoutian, Rewriting History: Recent Azeri Alterations of Primary Sources Dealing with Karabakh)

 

In the above link, it is clearly shown that passages that contain the word Armenian have been removed from historical texts.

 

As well destruction of historic Armenian monuments in order to erase the past history of Armenians:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZu2zqFE_gI

 

Tragedy on the Araxes

 

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/djulfa/index.html

 

Thus the countries of Turkey and republic of Azerbaijan (both very admired by Asgharzadeh and Chehregani and etc.) have major human rights issues.  Their violations of ethnic rights has been much worst than Iran in the past 100 years.

 

Thus we can see that Alireza Asgharzadeh and Alireza Nazmi Afshar as promoters of pan-Turkism have little moral ground for criticizing Iran and Iranians.  Nazmi Afshar as stated clearly by himself does not mind being called pan-Turkist and admiringly considers the interest of the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey above those of Iranians.  The genocides of Armenians, Greeks, Kurds in Turkey and the forceful assimilation of Kurds, Talysh, Lezgis in the republics of Azerbaijan as well as the destruction of Armenian monuments are clear examples of ethnic problems in these countries.   It is this authors opinion that these problems are due to pan-turkism followed by the elites.  Pan-turkists have many times argued for the right of what they consider “Azerbaijan” to separate from Iran.  But the same pan-Turkists will never grant Armenians the same right in Karabagh.  Such a policy of double standards clearly shows the hypocrisy and duplicity of pan-Turkists.

 

Pan-Turkist claims on Iran in the 19th and early 20th century and selective historical amnesia by Alireza Asgharzadeh

 

Anti-Iranism started in the caucus in the 19th century when due to the influence of pan-Turkism and also Russian influence, Azerbaijanis were slowly discouraged to use Persian and also classical literarily Azerbaijani which was a heavily Persianized language.

 

Hassan Bey Zardabi was one the foremost anti-Iranians in the caucus.  His newspaper Akinchi contained much anti-Iranian phobia.  According to Tadeusz Swietochowski:

 

“The Akinchi was written in a simple style, with few Persian and Arabic words for which new terms were being introduced, often coined by Zardabi himself. Those literati whose preferred language of expression was Persian re­acted with hostility to his insistence on using the "unprintable" idiom of common folk. Boycotted by the traditionalists and in­accessible to the mostly illiterate peasantry, the Akinchi inevitably became a forum for the intelligentsia. The circle of its contrib­utors consisted mainly of Sunnis like Zardabi, whose innuendos that Persia was a backward, fanatical, and inhuman country pro­voked widespread indignation.”( Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. p 29. ISBN: 0231070683)

 

According to Professor. Evan Siegel:

 

From this he concluded that the unity of the Russian Muslims was dependent on the unity of the Turkish language, and so efforts should be made to find a common language for the Russian Turks. This required a minimizing of the use of Persian, which entailed a struggle with the clergy's influence over the language, these being identified as a primary source of Persianization.  As a subsequent article pointed out, it also implied the Turkification of the Muslim linguistic minorities, i.e. the speakers of Persian (Tats) and the speakers of various Caucasian languages.

(http://www.geocities.com/evan_j_siegel/Akinji/Akinji.html)

 

It was in Akinchi that Zardabi called the Persian language, poetry and literature as the “braying of a donkey”.  (Jeyhoun Bey Hajibely: “The Origin of the National Press, in: Azerbaijan, The Asiatic Review, Vol. 26, 14e an. No. 88, July-Oct 1930, p 757 based on : Homa Nateq, Payamad Tanzimaat; Bohran Farhangi, Bukhara Magazine, Volume Veven, Mordad and Shahrivar, 1378 (Persian Solar Calendar)).

 

During the Czarist era, the Persian language was weakened in part due to pan-Turkism, in part due to Russian encouragement of disuse of Persian language and in part due to a new Turkish language that was developed under Ottoman and Russian influences.  Swietchowski comments:

 

The hold of Persian as the chief literary language in Azerbaijan was bro­ken, followed by the rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artifi­cial, heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position.  This process of cultural change was initially supported by the tsarist authorities, who were anxious to neutralize the still-wide­spread Azerbaijani identification with Persia. In doing so, the Russians resorted to a policy familiar in other parts of the em­pire, where Lithuanians, for example, were sporadically en­couraged to emancipate themselves from Polish cultural influences, as were the Latvians from German and the Finns from Swedish.( Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. p 29. ISBN: 0231070683)

 

 

Iranian nationalism in the 19th century caucus

 

Despite the fact that Alireza Asgharzadeh wants us to believe that modern Iranian nationalism started in 1925, this is not so.  As an example, one can mention Fathali Akhunzadeh.

According to Professor Tadeusz Swietochowski:

 

In his glorification of the pre-Islamic greatness of Iran, before it was destroyed at the hands of the "hungry, naked and savage Arabs, "Akhundzada was one of the forerunners of modern Iranian nationalism, and of its militant manifestations at that. Nor was he devoid of anti-Ottoman sentiments, and in his spirit of the age-long Iranian Ottoman confrontation he ventured into his writing on the victory of Shah Abbas I over the Turks at Baghdad. Akhundzadeh is counted as one of the founders of modern Iranian literature, and his formative influence is visible in such major Persian-language writers as Malkum Khan, Mirza Agha Khan and Mirza Abd ul-Rahim Talibof. All of them were advocates of reforms in Iran. If Akhundzadeh had no doubt that his spiritual homeland was Iran, Azerbaijan was the land he grew up and whose language was his native tongue. His lyrical poetry was written in Persian, but his work that carry messages of social importance as written in the language of the people of his native land, Turki. With no indication of split-personality, he combined larger Iranian identity with Azerbaijani - he used the term vatan (fatherland) in reference to both.( Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition (New York: Columbia University Press), 1995, page 27-28)

 

 

It would be embarrassing for Alireza Asgharzadeh to admit the above fact that an Azerbaijani was one of the forerunners of modern Iranian nationalism at least 50 years before Reza Shah.  Thus he does not examine the roots of modern Iranian nationalism which was defensive and was mainly formulated by Iranian Azerbaijans, partly as a reaction to pan-turkism.

 

Ottomon spreading of Pan-Turkism

 

Despite the fact that Alireza Asgharzadeh wants us to believe that modern Iranian nationalism started in 1925 due to orientalist influence, this again is not so.  Iranian Azerbaijanis before Reza Shah reacted to the threats of pan-Turkism and were strongpromoters of modern Iranian nationalism.  In this case, Professor. Touraj Atabaki has written a very detailed article which is included in this response article.

Before the advents of the Pahlavi era, the Ottomon empire briefly captured Azerbaijan in order to promote pan-Turkism and detach Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran.  According to Dr. Touraj Atabaki(Touraj Atabaki, “Recasting Oneself, Rejectingthe Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)

We will quote some important statements from this article which Alireza Asgharzadeh conviently ignores.  Alireza Asgharzadeh ignores the pan-Turkist attacks on Iranian nationality prior to Reza Shah because he wants to deceive users that Iranian nationalism is aggressive whereas Iranian nationalism has been totally defensive.

Dr. Atabaki remarks:

As far as Iran is concerned, it is widely argued that Iranian nationalism was born as a state ideology in the Reza Shah era, based on philological nationalism and as a result of his innovative success in creating a modern nation-state in Iran. However, what is often neglected is that Iranian nationalism has its roots in the political upheavals of the nineteenth century and the disintegration immediately following the Constitutional revolution of 1905– 9. It was during this period that Iranism gradually took shape as a defensive discourse for constructing a bounded territorial entity – the ‘pure Iran’ standing against all others. Consequently, over time there emerged among the country’s intelligentsia a political xenophobia which contributed to the formation of Iranian defensive nationalism. It is noteworthy that, contrary to what one might expect, many of the leading agents of the construction of an Iranian bounded territorial entity came from non Persian-speaking ethnic minorities, and the foremost were the Azerbaijanis, rather than the nation’s titular ethnic group, the Persians.

..

Soon after the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman Empire, with the encouragement of Enver Pasha, the Ottoman minister of war, sided with Germany.  The ultimate strategic objective for the Ottomans was to capture the Baku oilfields and northern Iran in order to penetrate Central Asia and Afghanistan, not only as a threat to British India, but also to extend the Ottoman Empire to what were referred as its natural boundaries

..

After World War I, the political arena in Anatolia as well as the Caucasus was significantly altered. The tsarist empire had been swept away by the winds of revolution and the Ottomans were striving to put together the jigsaw pieces of their empire. If during their first short-lived invasion the Ottomans had not had time to disseminate their pan-Turkist propaganda among the Iranian Azerbaijanis, as a result of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the fall of their old foe,

the CUP were now able to initiate a new pan-Turkist campaign in northern Iran. As noted by a member of the British diplomatic service: Turkey are hand in glove with the Tatars of Transcaucasia (Baku) and these have put in claims to Azerbaijan on their own account. . . . Northern Persia is essential to Turkey as a link with the

..

In the middle of April 1918, the Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan for the second time. Yusuf Zia, a local coordinator of the activities of the Teshkilat-i Mahsusa (Special Organization) 30 in the region, was appointed political adviser to the Ottoman contingent in Iran. Soon, the Teshkilaˆt-i Mahsusa introduced a small pan-Turkist party in Tabriz(31), together with the publication of an Azerbaijani-language newspaper called Azarabadegan, which was the Ottomans’ main instrument for propagating pan-Turkism throughout the province. The editorship of the newspaper was offered to Taqi Rafat, a local Azerbaijani who later became known for his vanguard role in effecting innovations in Persian literature.   Contrary to their expectations, however, the Ottomans did not achieve impressive success in Azerbaijan. Although the province remained under quasi-occupation by Ottoman troops for months, attempting to win endorsement for pan-Turkism ended in failure.

…

In the recently born state of Turkey, the Turk Ocagi activists strove to find a new home under the self-restrained Kemalist regime. In 1923, the Turkish magazine Yeni Mecmu’a (the New Journal) reported on a conference about Azerbaijan, held by Turk Ocagi in Istanbul. During the conference, Roshani Barkin, an ex-member of Teshkilat-I Mahsusa and an eminent pan-Turkist, condemned the Iranian government for its oppressive and tyrannical policies towards the Azerbaijanis living in Iran.  He called on all Azerbaijanis in Iran to unite with the new-born Republic of Turkey.

 

In response to pan-Turkism of the Ottomons, two journals called Iranshahr and Yandeh, run and published by Iranian Azerbaijanis Hassan Kazemzadeh Iranshahr and Mahmud Afshar, published nationalistic responses.  According to Dr. Atabaki(Touraj Atabaki, “Recasting Oneself, Rejectingthe Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.):

In reply Iranshahr (Land of Iran), a journal published in Berlin and the Tehran-based journal Ayandeh (The Future) ran a series of articles denouncing pan-Turkism and became the pioneers of the newly launched titular nationalism in Iran. While Iranshahr attempted to provide historical underpinning, Ayandeh took on the task of propounding the necessary conditions for the ‘unification’ and ‘Persianization’ of all Iranians as one nation.

Further, Reza Shah, himself an illiterate general and half Azerbaijani, endorsed the political blueprints of these Azerbaijani nationalists(Touraj Atabaki, “Recasting Oneself, Rejectingthe Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.):

With the passage of time, the proponents of this form of revivalist nationalism became the founders of a trend in Iranian historiography known above all for its emphasis on continuity in Iranian culture and its concern to uphold the country’s pre-Islamic values.  Furthermore, by adopting the Western European model of modern nation-state-building under an absolutist ruler, the Iranian nationalists in their manifesto advocated bureaucratic efficiency, clear territorial demarcation, and a homogenized and territorially fixed population, who were to be taxed, conscripted into the army and administered in such a way as to be transformed into modern ‘citizens’. When Reza Shah ascended the throne, he wholeheartedly endorsed all the demands voiced by these nationalists. Indeed, the blueprint for his ‘one country, one nation’ project was already on his desk.

According to Dr. Atabaki, given the threat of pan-Turkism by Ottomons, the reaction of romantic nationalism was adopted by Azerbaijani democrats (followers of Khiyabani and constitutional revolutionists) and Azerbaijani intellectuals in Iran. 

In Iran after the Constitutional movement romantic nationalism was adopted by the Azerbaijani Democrats as a reaction to the irredentist policies threatening the country’s territorial integrity. In their view, assuring territorial integrity was a necessary first step on the road to establishing the rule of law in society and a competent modern state which would safeguard collective as well as individual rights. It was within this context that their political loyalty outweighed their other ethnic or regional affinities.  The failure of the Democrats in the arena of Iranian politics after the Constitutional movement and the start of modern statebuilding paved the way for the emergence of the titular ethnic group’s cultural nationalism. Whereas the adoption of integrationist policies preserved Iran’s geographic integrity and provided the majority of Iranians with a secure and firm national identity, the blatant ignoring of other demands of the Constitutional movement, such as the call for formation of society based on law and order, left the country still searching for a political identity.(Touraj Atabaki, “Recasting Oneself, Rejecting the Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)

It is worth quoting all of the article of Dr. Atabaki.

 

Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century.

London, , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001. p 80.

 

 

Recasting Oneself, Rejecting the Other: Pan-Turkism and

Iranian Nationalism

By: Dr. Touraj Atabaki

 

 

Twentieth-century historiography on nation– state correlation and

nationalism has to a large extent been shaped by a eurocentric ethnolinguistic

discourse, where ‘ethnicity and language’ become the

central, increasingly the decisive or even the only, criteria of potential

nationhood, (1) or as Karl Renner asserts:

 

once a certain degree of European development has been reached,

the linguistic and cultural communities of people, having silently

matured throughout the centuries, emerge from the world of

passive existence as people (Passiver Volkheit). They become conscious

of themselves as a force with historical destiny. They

demand control over the state, as the highest available instrument

of power, and strive for their political self-determination. The

birthday of the political idea of the nation and the birth-year of

this new consciousness, is 1789, the year of the French Revolution.(2)

 

 

However, what this perception of the nation-state largely neglects is

the fact that the construction of a bounded territorial entity (or what

is generally referred to as nation-state-building) has often entailed

components other than ethnic or linguistic bonds. Collective imagination,

political allegiances, reconstructing and reinterpreting history,

the invention of necessary historical traditions to justify and give

coherence to the emerging modern state: all these are often major

factors in bringing groups of people together and strengthening or

even forming their common sense of identity and political solidarity.

 

In some cases the mere application of ancient, historically resonant

names and traditions is enough to evoke a consensus of political legitimacy.

Consequently, the social connotations of certain key socio-political

phrases, as well as geographic terms, become an important

element in reshaping the geographic boundaries of emerging sovereign

states.

 

As far as Iran is concerned, it is widely argued that Iranian nationalism

was born as a state ideology in the Reza Shah era, based on

philological nationalism and as a result of his innovative success in

creating a modern nation-state in Iran. However, what is often

neglected is that Iranian nationalism has its roots in the political

upheavals of the nineteenth century and the disintegration immediately

following the Constitutional revolution of 1905– 9. It was during

this period that Iranism gradually took shape as a defensive discourse

for constructing a bounded territorial entity – the ‘pure Iran’ standing

against all others. Consequently, over time there emerged among the

country’s intelligentsia a political xenophobia which contributed to the

formation of Iranian defensive nationalism. It is noteworthy that,

contrary to what one might expect, many of the leading agents of the

construction of an Iranian bounded territorial entity came from nonPersian-speaking

ethnic minorities, and the foremost were the Azerbaijanis,

rather than the nation’s titular ethnic group, the Persians.

The intention of this essay is to throw further light on the complex

origins of Iranian nationalism. While examining the various loyalties

of the Iranian non-Persian intelligentsia, I shall sketch the measures

adopted by such groups when defending their real or imagined identities

against the early-twentieth-century irredentist ideology of neighbouring

states.

 

 

The Outbreak of World War I

 

 

For many Iranians the thirteen months of ‘lesser despotism’ of June

1908– July 1909 which followed Muhammad ’Ali Shah’s coup was the

most crucial period of their country’s constitutional history: the entire

country, except for Azerbaijan, was subjugated to the new regime. By

sending in the army and imposing economic restrictions, the central

government strove to bring the Azerbaijanis, too, to their knees.

However, while famine spread across the province, the Azerbaijani

constitutionalists set up barricades in Tabriz and prepared to offer

 

armed resistance. When the government in Tehran was eventually

overthrown, the constitutionalists found themselves in a nearly unique

position with the attention of the entire nation fixed on them. Gradually

the belief arose among Iranians that, although the Constitutional

Revolution had been born in Tehran, it had been baptized in Tabriz

and the Constitution had no chance of surviving without Azerbaijan.

Moreover, Azerbaijan was seen as the most important centre where

any future progressive political changes would originate. This

appraisal of the cardinal role played by the Azerbaijanis in restoring

constitutionalism in Iran left Azerbaijani constitutionalists with a

strong consciousness of being the protectors of the country’s territorial

integrity, a consciousness which still persists.

When World War I erupted, political chaos and confusion swept

across Iran. Successive governments proved incapable of solving the

country’s escalating problems and implementing fundamental reforms.

Indeed, not only did the outbreak of the war fail to stop political

disintegration in Iran, but increased foreign pressure caused the longstanding

rift in Iranian politics to widen. As early as October 1910,

Britain had delivered an ultimatum to Iran concerning the security of

southern Iran. In so doing, Britain set an example for the Russians to

follow. Russian troops had already occupied the northern provinces.

In November 1911 the tsarist government presented its own ultimatum

to Iran, which amounted to nothing less than an attempt to

reduce the north of the country to the status of a semi-dependent

colony. (3) However, while the Iranian parliament, which enjoyed the

support of the crowds in the street, resisted the Russian ultimatum,

the fragile Iranian government decided to accept it and dissolve

the parliament. This seemed the only effective measure available

to the deputies in the face of the crisis that had arisen. (4) Meanwhile,

the occupation of the north and south of Iran by Russian and British

troops was to provoke the Ottoman forces to invade western and

north-western Iran early in the war. If we add to this list of disasters

the activities of German agents, especially among the southern tribes,

we begin to get an idea of how impotent the Iranian government was

during this period.

The Iranian government’s reaction to the outbreak of the war was

to declare Iran’s strict neutrality in the farman of 1 November 1914.

On the other hand, what sense was there in the government’s announcing

its neutrality when a sizeable part of Iran’s territory was occupied

by the Entente forces? When Mostowfi ol-Mamalik,

the prime minister, approached the Russian authorities and asked that they withdraw

their troops from Azerbaijan because their presence gave the

Turks a pretext for invading Iran, ‘the Russian minister appreciated

the Iranian viewpoint but inquired what guarantees could be given

that after the withdrawal of Russian forces, the Turks would not

bring in theirs.’ (5) Consequently, Azerbaijan became one of the major

battlefields of the war. As part of their military strategy, the Russians,

British and Ottomans all pursued policies which aimed at stirring up

or aggravating the existing animosities between the different ethnic

and religious groupings in the province. Promises were made with

regard to setting up a sovereign state for Kurds, Assyrians, Armenians

and Azerbaijani Muslims. Such demagogic manipulations led to the

most bloody and barbaric confrontations among these ethnic and religious

groups.

Soon after the outbreak of World War I, the Ottoman Empire, with

the encouragement of Enver Pasha, the Ottoman minister of war, sided

with Germany. Enver Pasha, judged that doing so gave the Ottomans a

good chance of surviving and perhaps even of making some gains from

Russia. He also declared a jihad, inciting Muslims to rise up against

British and Russian rule in India, Iran, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

To him, the Russians were not only kafir (infidels), but also invaders

who had occupied areas south of the Caucasus which were considered

part of the Islamic– Turkic homeland. Enver Pasha played a leading

part in negotiating a secret German– Ottoman treaty, signed on 2

August 1914; in October the Ottoman fleet entered the Black Sea,

bombarded Odessa and the Crimean ports, and sank Russian ships. In

addition, Ottoman forces were deployed along the Caucasus frontier

with Russia, where severe fighting began in the harsh mountain terrain.

The ultimate strategic objective for the Ottomans was to capture

the Baku oilfields and northern Iran in order to penetrate Central Asia

and Afghanistan, not only as a threat to British India, but also to

extend the Ottoman Empire to what were referred as its natural

boundaries:

 

 

We should not forget that the reason for our entrance into the

world war is not only to save our country from the danger threatening

it. No, we pursue an even more immediate goal – the realization

of our ideal, which demands that, having shattered our

Muscovite enemy, we lead our empire to its natural boundaries,

which would encompass and unite all our related people. (6)

 

In December 1914, a Russian advance towards Erzurum was countered

by the Ottomans, but, in battles at Sarikamish¸ in January 1915

the Ottomans, ill-clad and ill-supplied for the Caucasian winter,

suffered their greatest defeat of the war.

In the south, other Ottoman forces, which had invaded the city of

Maraghan in late November 1914, moved to Tabriz on 14 January.

Since the Russian army was still stationed in Tabriz, confrontation

between two armies seemed inevitable. Although the Russian troops

avoided a military confrontation and evacuated Tabriz, the Ottomans

were unable to maintain their hold on the city and were expelled by a

Russian counter-invasion in March 1915.(7) The defeat at Sarikamish¸

was indeed a turning-point in the Ottomans’ policy of expanding east.

Throughout the remaining years of the war they adopted a low profile

in the region. It was only at the end of the World War I, and

following the Russian Revolution, that the Ottomans were able to

return to Iran.

 

Pan-Turkism and Iran’s Response to It

 

 

Although it took some years for the Ottomans to realize their dream of

installing themselves in the region north as well as south of the Araxes

river, the pan-Turkist uproar reached Baku as early as 1908, when the

Young Turk Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) launched their

coup, which brought an end to the despotic era of Abdulhamid.

When Abdulhamid abdicated, pan-Islamism, which he had supported,

was flavoured throughout the heartland of the empire by Turkic

national sentiment. Like the people who initiated pan-Turkism, the

pioneers of propagating pan-Turkism among the Turkic peoples came

from the Russian Empire, having been influenced by the model of

nineteenth-century pan-Slavism.

 

As early as 1904, Yusuf Akc¸ uroglu (later known as Yusuf Akchura),

a Tatar from the Russian Empire, published a pamphlet called Uch¸

Tarz-i Siyaset (Three Kinds of Policies), which soon came to be

known as the manifesto of the pan-Turkists. In this famous declaration,

which was originally printed in Cairo by Turks in exile, Akc¸ ura

discussed the inherent historical obstacles blocking the advance of

pan-Ottomanism and pan-Islamism and advocated Ittihad-i Etrak

(Unity of Turks), or as he later called it, Turkculuk (Turkism), (8) as the

sole concept capable of sustaining the Turk milleti (Turkish nation).

 

 

He admitted that he ‘does not know if the idea still had adherents

outside the Ottoman Empire’, especially in Qafqaziya ve shimali Iran

(the Caucasus and northern Iran), but he hoped that in the near

future his views on Turkish identity would attract the support of

many Turks wherever they lived. (9)

 

Ittihad-i Etrak was soon adopted as a policy by political parties and

‘cultural organizations’ in the Ottoman Empire. In 1908, Turk Dernegi

(the Turkish Society) was founded in Istanbul to study the ‘past and

present activities and circumstances of all the people called Turk.(10) In

its declaration issued on 25 December 1908, the society pledged to

‘encourage the use of Ottoman-Turkish among foreign peoples. At

first, Turks in the Balkan states, Austria, Russia, Iran, Africa, Central

Asia and China will be familiarized with Ottoman-Turkish’. Furthermore,

‘languages in Azerbaijan, Kashgar, Bukhara, Khiva, etc., will be

reformed to be like Ottoman-Turkish for the benefit of Ottoman

trade’.(11)   Turk Dernegi was followed by another society called Turk

Ocagi (Turkish Hearth). In its manifesto, written in 1912, this society

proclaimed as its chief aim ‘to advance the national education and

raise the scientific, social and economic level of the Turks who are the

foremost of the peoples of Islam, and to strive for the betterment of

the Turkish race and language’.(12)

 

The pioneers of pan-Turkism in Caucasian Azerbaijan, however,

were those of the Azerbaijani elite living in Istanbul who were disillusioned

by the stagnation of the Iranian constitutional movement, the

failure of the Russian revolution of 1905, and the crisis in the

European social democratic movement. Some, who were sympathetic

to the Iranian reformist movement, turned their gaze from Tabriz and

Tehran to Istanbul. The Istanbul of the Young Turks, with its call

for unity among the Turkic peoples, was a new haven for such elites

from tsarist Russia. With a growing sense of their isolation, they

turned to studying ethnic culture and history and its accompanying

political importance. The outlook of Ali Husaynzade, Ahmad Aghayev

and, later, Muhammad Amin Rasulzade was immediately welcomed

by the CUP, and some of them were even given government positions

in the new Ottoman regime. When Turk Yurdu (Turkish Homeland),

the main journal propagating pan-Turkism in the Ottoman Empire

was launched in Istanbul, they were among the most prominent

contributors to it. In one of his editorials Ahmad Aghayev even

reproached the Ottomans for calling the Iranian Azerbaijanis,

Iranians, rather than Turks. (13) Muhammad Amin Rasulzade in a series

of articles entitled ‘Iran Turkleri’ (the Iranian Turks), contributed a

descriptive analysis of the Iranian Turkic minorities and their distinctive

national identities. (14)

 

During the war, pan-Turkist activities in Baku, which was still

under tsarist rule, were mainly confined to the publication of certain

periodicals. While maintaining their absolute loyalty in the tsarist

cause in the war, periodicals such as Yeni Fuyuzat (New Abundance)

and Salale (Cascade), adopted as their chief mission the purification of

the Azerbaijani language, Arabic and Persian vocabulary was to be

purged, and words of pure Turkic origin were to be substituted, as

was being done in nationalist circles in the Ottoman Empire. Whereas

news about the activities of pan-Turkist organizations in the empire

was often covered in editorials by ‘Isa Bey Azurbeyli, the editor of

Salale , the question of Iranian Azerbaijan remained neglected by such

periodicals, and it seemed that in their hidden agenda the forging of

firmer ties with the Ottomans had priority over unification with the

Iranian Azerbaijanis. (15)

 

 

However, the attitude toward Turkism in the Caucasus was somewhat

altered when in 1913 an amnesty was declared in Baku on the

occasion of the three hundredth anniversary of the Romanov dynasty.

Political activists such as the committed social democrat Rasulzade,

who some years earlier had launched the leading newspaper Iran-e

Now in Tehran, were then able to return to live within tsarist territory.

On his return to Baku, Rasulzade began to publish his own

newspaper. The first issue of Achiq Soz (Candid Speech) appeared in

October 1915 and publication continued until March 1918. Under the

tsars the newspaper called itself ‘a Turkish political, social and literary

paper’ and adopted a standpoint close to that of the tsarist empire,

endorsing the latter’s war policy. At the same time, it paid a certain

amount of attention to Iran and Iranian Azerbaijan. When it had

occasion to cover Iranian news, it voiced its sympathy for the Iranian

Democrats. 16 After the Russian Revolution, however, it changed its

attitude, and abruptly adopted an openly pro-Ottoman policy, calling

for turklame´, islamlame´ va mu‘ asirllame´ (Turkicization, Islamicization

and modernization).

 

On 18 October 1917, a branch of Turk Ocagi was founded in Baku.

Among the aspirations of the new society, which claimed that its

activities were confined exclusively to the cultural domain, was the

desire to ‘acquaint the younger generation with their historical Turkic

heritage and to consolidate their Turkic consciousness through setting

up schools, organizing conferences and publishing books’.(17) Achiq Soz

not only welcomed the new society but reported extensively on its

activities, covered its frequent gatherings in Baku, and published

lectures delivered at its conferences. Most of these lengthy articles

were on different aspects of the history and culture of the Muslim

peoples of the southern Caucasus. It seems that at this stage no one in

Baku was interested in applying the term ‘Azerbaijan’ to the territory

south of the Caucasus. ‘Tu¨rk milleti’ and ‘Qafqaziya mu¨salman Xalqi’

(the Muslim people of the Caucasus) were often employed to designate

the inhabitants of the region. The first Constituent Assembly,

which was established in Baku on 29 April 1917, was even called the

General Assembly of the Caucasian Muslims.

 

One result of the political upheavals in Moscow, which eventually

ended with the Bolshevik takeover in October 1917, was the creation

of a power vacuum in the Caucasus. A month later, the Transcaucasian

Commissariat was established in Tblisi, and it proclaimed ‘the

right of Caucasian nations to self-determination’. By then it was

obvious that the Armenian Dashnakists and Georgian Mensheviks

were poised to establish their power over a large part of the region.

The Baku Musavatists, who enjoyed an absolute majority in the Baku

Constituent Assembly, realized that the time had come for swift political

action. With the old tsarist empire gone, the Musavatists were

counting on the Ottomans, who were now viewed as the uncontested

dominant power in the region. The goal of the Musavatists in their

contest with the Armenians and the Georgians was to win control

over as much territory as possible. They claimed ‘besides the Baku

and Ganja province, the Muslim population of Daghestan, the

northern Caucasus, the Georgian-speaking Muslim Inghilios of Zakataly,

the Turkish inhabitants of the province of Erivan and Kars, and

even the Georgian-speaking Muslim Ajars of the southern shore of

the Black Sea’.(18) Furthermore, since the majority of Azerbaijani speaking

people lived in a large region within northern Iran, their ultimate

hope was to persuade the Azerbaijani leaders in Iran to support

their proposed project for unity. Consequently, in October 1917 an

emissary arrived in Tabriz, approached the local politicians and advocated

that they separate from Iran and join with Baku in a great

federation. However, their proposal was rejected by the Azerbaijani

Democrats. (19)

 

 

Following this failure, in an editorial published in Achiq Soz, in

January 1918 the Musavatists for the first time tackled the question of

Iranian Azerbaijan. In a rather haughty style, the author defined the

historical boundaries of Azerbaijan as stretching to the Caucasian

mountains in the north and to Kirmanshah in the south, with Tbilisi

forming the western frontier and the Caspian Sea the eastern. The

Russian expansionists and the Iranian ruling class were blamed for

having adopted policies that resulted in the dismemberment of the

nation of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, according to the author, it was the

‘natural right of the south Caucasian Muslims to call their territory

Azerbaijan’ and to hope that ‘one day their brothers in the south

could join them’.(20)

Interestingly enough, the first reaction to this irredentist propaganda

came from a group of Iranian Democrats residing in Baku.

Since the beginning of the century, the flourishing economy of the

Caucasus had attracted many Iranians, most of whom were Azerbaijanis

or Azerbaijani-speakers from the north of Iran. But although

they spoke the same language, they did not readily assimilate.

Throughout the Caucasus region they were known as ‘hamshahri’

(fellow countrymen) and they maintained a sense of separate identity

which marked them out as different from the local population. (21)

 

Of the various organizations that existed among the Iranian

community in Baku, the local branch of the Iranian Democrat Party

was the most eminent and active. The party’s Baku Committee was

founded in 1914 and its members were recruited from the Iranian

community in Baku and the adjacent regions. In their perception the

view expounded in the Achiq Soz editorial was nothing less than a

pan-Turkist plot which menaced Iran’s sovereignty and territorial

integrity. Disturbed by such attempts to undermine Iranian unity,

they soon inaugurated their own political campaign in the region. On

10 February 1918, the Democrats launched the publication of a bilingual

newspaper, Azarbayjan, Joz’-e la-yanfakk-e Iran (Azerbaijan, an

Inseparable Part of Iran). (22) ‘Azarbayjan’ was printed in big letters on

the masthead with ‘Joz’-e la-yanfakk-e Iran’ printed in much smaller

letters inside the ‘n’ of Azarbayjan’. Later on Salamullah Javid, a political

activist in Baku, acknowledged that ‘the decision to publish the

newspaper was taken by the Democrats at the local level and was a

direct response to irredentist propaganda initiated by Achiq Soz’.(23)

 

In addition to promoting political change and reform in Iran, the

newspaper declared as its task ‘displaying the country’s glorious past

and its historical continuity’,(24) as well as ‘hindering any attempt to

diminish the national consciousness of Iranians’.(25) While glorifying

the name of Azerbaijan and its ‘key position in Iranian history’, the

publication frequently referred to ‘the many centuries during which

Azerbaijan governed all of Iran’. Similarly, it stressed that Azerbaijan

had a shared history with the rest of Iran, and strove to foster selfconfidence

and the feeling of belonging to territorial Iran. Pointing to

the geographical front-line position of the province, the newspaper

‘declared it to be the duty of Azerbaijanis’ to confront the hostile

outsiders, and to safeguard the country’s ‘national pride’ and ‘territorial

integrity’. Though the newspaper never named these outsiders,

or ‘intruders’, as they were called, it considered that ‘their intention

has always been to undermine Iran’s territorial integrity and political

sovereignty’. Moreover, by representing Azerbaijanis as the main

champions of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, it attempted to

portray them as the sole guardians of Iran as a bounded territorial

entity.

 

In a multi-ethnic society like Iran, where Persians form the titular

ethnic group, a minority of Azerbaijanis living outside Iran, but

within their linguistic territory, promoted a sense of Iranian state patriotism

and territorial nationalism rather than their own ethno-nationalism.

Their political loyalty and attachment to a constructed

political reliability therefore took precedence over their other loyalties,

in particular their ethnic loyalty. Likewise, they apparently believed in

the nineteenth-century notion of a ‘historical nation’ in which the

Staatsvolk (state-people) was associated with the state. In their view,

the Iranians, just as the dispersed members of a Greater Russia or a

Greater Germany did, made up a community associated with a territorial

state. Consequently they attempted to uphold their territorial/

Iranian identity in the face of pan-Turkist propaganda by ‘shaping a

significant and unbroken link with a seminal past that could fill the

gap between the nation’s origin and its actuality’.(26) For them, as

Nipperdey has correctly pointed out, romantic nationalism provided

the driving force for political action: ‘cultural identity with its claims

for what ought to be, demanded political consequences: a common

state, the only context in which they [the people] could develop, the

only force that could protect them and the only real possibility for

integrating individuals into a nation’.(27)

 

With a persuasive political agenda, Azarbayjan, Joz’-e la-yanfakk-e

Iran pursued what in its first issue it had proclaimed to be its duty,

and continued to publish even after the takeover of Baku by the

Bolsheviks known as the Baku Commune. However, it was forced to

close down in May 1918 when the Musavatists regained power and

formed their national government. In their turn the Musavatists, who

had been obliged to stop publishing Achiq Soz during the previous

five months, in September 1918 launched their new gazette Azerbayjan.

By adopting the same name for their publication that the

Iranian Democrats in Baku had used four months earlier, the Musavatists

demonstrated their firm attachment to the name they intended to

give their future independent state.

 

The Return of the Ottomans

 

After World War I, the political arena in Anatolia as well as the

Caucasus was significantly altered.  The tsarist empire had been swept

away by the winds of revolution and the Ottomans were striving to

put together the jigsaw pieces of their empire. If during their first

short-lived invasion the Ottomans had not had time to disseminate

their pan-Turkist propaganda among the Iranian Azerbaijanis, as a

result of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the fall of their old foe,

the CUP were now able to initiate a new pan-Turkist campaign in

northern Iran. As noted by a member of the British diplomatic

service: Turkey are hand in glove with the Tatars of Transcaucasia

(Baku) and these have put in claims to Azerbaijan on their own

account. . . . Northern Persia is essential to Turkey as a link with the

Turanians of Central Asia. (28)

 

In the middle of April 1918, the Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan

for the second time. Yusuf Zia, (29) a local coordinator of the activities

of the Teskilat-i Mahsusa (Special Organization) (30) in the region, was

appointed political adviser to the Ottoman contingent in Iran. Soon,

the Teskilat-i Mahsusa introduced a small pan-Turkist party in

Tabriz(31), together with the publication of an Azerbaijani-language

newspaper called Azarabadegan, which was the Ottomans’ main

instrument for propagating pan-Turkism throughout the province.

The editorship of the newspaper was offered to Taqi Rafcat, a local

Azerbaijani who later became known for his vanguard role in effecting

innovations in Persian literature.

 

Contrary to their expectations, however, the Ottomans did not

achieve impressive success in Azerbaijan. Although the province

remained under quasi-occupation by Ottoman troops for months,

attempting to win endorsement for pan-Turkism ended in failure.

 

The Ottomans had never enjoyed the support of local political parties,

ever since their arrival in Tabriz, and their relations with the local

Democrats had been particularly strained. With the passage of time

relations with the Democrats deteriorated to the point, where the

Ottomans went as far as to arrest the Democrats’ popular radical

leader, Muhammad Khiyabani, together with his two comrades

Nowbari and Badamchi, and sent them to Kars in exile. (32) Khiyabani

being accused of ‘collaborating with the Armenians against the forces

of Islam’,(33) the immediate result of their intervention was to whip up

serious anti-Ottoman sentiment among the Democrats, who were

preparing to take control of the province.

 

The summer of 1918 appeared to be a honeymoon period for the

Ottomans after stationing their troops on Iranian soil. Occupying the

area north of the Araxes was the next logical step on their agenda.

With the seizure of Baku in September 1918, it seemed that their

Turanian dream was gradually being realized: the region both north

and south of the Araxes was now under their control. However, with

the end of the war approaching, and an escalating political problem at

home, not to mention the food crisis, the CUP leadership was obliged

to give priority to the centre of its envisaged empire rather than to the

periphery. A direct consequence of the large-scale export of cattle and

grain from the newly occupied territories to the Ottoman interior was

a mounting resentment among the local population. On 23 September

1918, an Ottoman– German protocol was signed, confirming the territorial

integrity of Iran, but the Ottomans suffered a setback on their

western front when Bulgaria was forced to surrender on 30 September.

It was then obvious that pursuing the war any further was impossible

for the Ottomans. On 9 October, the CUP government fell and the

new government of Izzet Pasha signed an armistice with the Allies.

Returning to Tabriz from exile on 24 June 1920, Khiyabani

announced the formation of a local government. The announcement

took place with pomp and ceremony in the ‘Ali Qapi’, the central

government’s provincial headquarters. In a country where the political

culture was dominated by xenophobia, one of the key issues for

Khiyabani and his fellow Democrats was how to dissociate themselves

as completely as possible from the foreign powers. Their relations

with the Ottomans, in view of the latter’s actions against Khiyabani,

remained cold and distant. But what concerned them even more

urgently was how to defend their position in face of the political

upheavals sweeping through the Caucasus.

 

On 27 May 1918, when the new Republic of Azerbaijan was

founded on the territory north of the Araxes River and south-east of

Transcaucasia, the adoption of the name ‘Azerbaijan’ caused consternation

in Iran, especially among Azerbaijani intellectuals.  Khiyabani

and his fellow Democrats, in order to dissociate themselves from the

Transcaucasians, decided to change the name of Iranian Azerbaijan to

Azadistan (Land of Freedom). (34) By way of justifying this decision,

they referred to the important ‘heroic role’ Azerbaijan had played in

the struggle to establish the Constitution in Iran which, in their view,

warranted adopting the name Azadistan. (35)

 

From Territorial to Titular Nationalism

 

The fall of the Musavatists in 1920s, which was a result of close collaboration

between the Bolsheviks and the CUP leadership, caused

considerable disillusion among the Azerbaijani pro-Ottoman intelligentsia.

However profitable this cooperation was for the Bolsheviks,

the old guard of the Ottoman Unionists in the region, by adopting

different measures, were still striving to realize their old dream. As an

intelligence British office remarked:

 

It will be remembered that the unfortunate ‘Musavat’ government

of Baku was successfully overturned by the Communists mainly as

a result of the assistance given by the numerous Turkish Unionists.

The infiltration of Unionists in the Turkish Communist Party

in Baku still continues; they thus seek to establish complete control

in course of time, and to gain control of Georgia and Azerbaijan in

order to connect them up with their schemes in Central Asia. . . .

The Unionists’ plan therefore is to continue the alliance with

Russia so long as it enables them to advance their own plans,

which are being energetically pursued. (36)

 

The final consolidation of Soviet power in the Caucasus, which was

eventually realized by the subjugating of Georgia on March 1921,

paved the way for a shift in diplomatic maneuvering by the newly

born Soviet administration. In February the Soviet– Iranian Treaty

was concluded, and it was followed by the signing of a peace treaty

with Turkey in March 1921. Having extended its southern border to

the Araxes river, the Soviet regime adopted a restrained policy towards Iran,

officially forbidding any nationalist claims on Iranian territory.

 

The tragic outcome of Khiyabani’s revolt, which was followed by

the suppression of the uprisings in Khorasan and Gilan, left the

Democrats in Iran in total disarray. A group of them, mainly from

non-Azerbaijani background, were enthralled by pan-Islamism, as

propagated by the late Ottomans as a means of winning over a non-Turkic

people in the region. Another tendency within the Democrats

found it difficult to subscribe to the regional movement launched by

their party comrades. Subsequently, a new group of reform-minded

intellectuals gradually emerged on the Iranian political scene.  Their

mode of understanding society was based on socio-political ideas of

West European origin. Despite the diversity of their political views,

what singled out them from the home-grown variety of educated or

learned individuals was the model of society that they took for

granted. The West European model presupposed a coherent, class-layered

society, which by definition was organized around the distinctive

concepts of nation and state. They were convinced that only a

strong centralized government based in the capital would be capable

of implementing reform throughout Iran, while preserving the

nation’s territorial integrity. Likewise they believed that modernization

and modern state-building in Iran would require low cultural

diversity and a high degree of ethnic homogeneity. Only when Iran

fulfilled the preconditions for a nation-state as defined by them, when

‘empirically almost all the residents of a state identify with the one

subjective idea of the nation, and that nation is virtually contiguous’,(37)

could they realistically cherish hopes of safeguarding Iranian territorial

integrity.

 

In the recently born state of Turkey, the Turk Ocagi activists strove

to find a new home under the self-restrained Kemalist regime. In

1923, the Turkish magazine Yeni Mecmu’a (the New Journal) reported

on a conference about Azerbaijan, held by Turk Ocagi in Istanbul.

During the conference, Roshani Barkin, an ex-member of Teshkilat-i

Mahsusa and an eminent pan-Turkist, condemned the Iranian

government for its oppressive and tyrannical policies towards the

Azerbaijanis living in Iran.  He called on all Azerbaijanis in Iran to

unite with the new-born Republic of Turkey. (38)

 

In reply Iranshahr (Land of Iran), a journal published in Berlin,

and the Tehran-based journal Ayandeh (The Future) ran a series of

articles denouncing pan-Turkism and became the pioneers of the

newly launched titular nationalism in Iran. While Iranshahr attempted

to provide historical underpinning, Ayandeh took on the task of

propounding the necessary conditions for the ‘unification’ and ‘Persianization’

of all Iranians as one nation. (39( Advocating the elimination of

regional differences in ‘language, clothing, customs and suchlike’,

Ayandeh demanded ‘national unity’ based on the standardized, homogeneous

and centrally sustained high culture of the titular ethnic

group:

 

Kurds, Lors, Qashwa’is, Arabs, Turks, Turkmens, etc., shall not

differ from one another by wearing different clothes or speaking a

different language. In my opinion, until national unity is achieved

in Iran, with regard to customs, clothing, and so forth, the possibility

of our political independence and geographical integrity being

endangered will always remain.(40)

 

 

Their insistence on raising the status of Persian above that of a lingua

franca and cleansing its vocabulary of loan words, especially those

from Turkish and Arabic, provided the newly constructed sentiment

with a form of philological nationalism. Later, philologists were to be

inspired to create grotesque and far-fetched neologisms such as ‘kas

nadanad-sikhaki’, to replace ‘mahramana-mostagim’ (direct-confidential).

Moreover, their campaign of purification naturally went beyond

the linguistic field and pervaded the realm of Iranian history as well.

By rewriting history, a ‘pure Iran’ with a long historical identity was

created, an Iran purged of all ‘foreign’ and ‘uncivilized elements’

within its borders. Such an identity ultimately depended on negative

stereotypes of non-Iranians. The Turks and later the Arabs, who were

referred in nationalist discourse as the ‘yellow and green hazards’,(41)

served as the indispensable ‘others’ in the construction of the new

Iranian identity. With the passage of time, the proponents of this

form of revivalist nationalism became the founders of a trend in

Iranian historiography known above all for its emphasis on continuity

in Iranian culture and its concern to uphold the country’s pre-Islamic

values.

 

Furthermore, by adopting the Western European model of modern

nation-state-building under an absolutist ruler, the Iranian nationalists

in their manifesto advocated bureaucratic efficiency, clear territorial

demarcation, and a homogenized and territorially fixed population,

who were to be taxed, conscripted into the army and administered in

such a way as to be transformed into modern ‘citizens’. When Reza

Shah ascended the throne, he wholeheartedly endorsed all the

demands voiced by these nationalists. Indeed, the blueprint for his

‘one country, one nation’ project was already on his desk.

 

Conclusion

 

The most important political development affecting the Middle East

at the beginning of the twentieth century was the collapse of the

Ottoman and the Russian empires. The idea of a greater homeland for

all Turks was propagated by pan-Turkism, which was adopted almost

at once as a main ideological pillar by the Committee of Union and

Progress and somewhat later by other political caucuses in what

remained of the Ottoman Empire. On the eve of World War I, pan-Turkist

propaganda focused chiefly on the Turkic-speaking peoples of

the southern Caucasus, in Iranian Azerbaijan and Turkistan in

Central Asia, with the ultimate purpose of persuading them all to

secede from the larger political entities to which they belonged and to

join the new pan-Turkic homeland. Interestingly, it was this latter

appeal to Iranian Azerbaijanis which, contrary to pan-Turkist intentions,

caused a small group of Azerbaijani intellectuals to become the

most vociferous advocates of Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

If in Europe ‘romantic nationalism responded to the damage likely

to be caused by modernism by providing a new and larger sense of

belonging, an all-encompassing totality, which brought about new

social ties, identity and meaning, and a new sense of history from

one’s origin on to an illustrious future’,(42) in Iran after the Constitutional

movement romantic nationalism was adopted by the Azerbaijani

Democrats as a reaction to the irredentist policies threatening the

country’s territorial integrity. In their view, assuring territorial integrity

was a necessary first step on the road to establishing the rule of

law in society and a competent modern state which would safeguard

collective as well as individual rights. It was within this context that

their political loyalty outweighed their other ethnic or regional affinities.

The failure of the Democrats in the arena of Iranian politics

after the Constitutional movement and the start of modern state-building

paved the way for the emergence of the titular ethnic group’s

cultural nationalism. Whereas the adoption of integrationist policies

preserved Iran’s geographic integrity and provided the majority of

Iranians with a secure and firm national identity, the blatant ignoring

of other demands of the Constitutional movement, such as the call for

formation of society based on law and order, left the country still

searching for a political identity.

 

Notes/References (click)

 

 

 

 

As proven, Azerbaijani Iranian nationalists were the main promoters of Iranian nationalism.  Rezashah, himself illiterate and also half Caucasian (his mother was from the caucus) just implemented some of the integrationist ideas of Azerbaijanis like Kazemzadeh Iranshahr and Mahmud Afshar.  Thus if Alireza Asgharzadeh has a problem with modern Iranian nationalism he needs to blame pan-Turkists for causing a Iranian Azerbaijani reaction to their design during WWI.  It is of course very convienient for Asgharzadeh to simply ignore all this historical material.  It would make it extremely embarrassing for him to defend it.  Then he will be forced to take into account that Azerbaijanis were the main components and supporters of modern Iranian nationalism and also he needs to analyze the pan-turkist attacks on Iran before 1925.  He will be forced to take into account how the grandfather of Javad Heyat himself was allied with the Ottomon invaders during WWI.  All of these facts he simply simply ignores because all of his false theories about “suffering of Azeris” will simply be shattered.

 

The humorous aspect of this is that Asgharzadeh in a recent interview considered Irans regime as apartheid regime.  What kind of regime has its supreme leader (Khaemeni) as an Azeri and is considered an apartheid regime?  Or what kind of history is this that almost all the proponents of modern Iranian nationalism before Rezashah were Azerbaijanis.  Where Blacks in South Africa the major proponents of White Apartheid (assuming this false comparison of Asgharzadeh)!  Or where they the supreme leader of the country!?


Response to many of the false claims of Alireza Asgharzadeh

 

In order to respond to the false claims of Asgharzadeh, the necessary background above was needed and some of it has been provided in the previous sections.  The author of this article will now examine many of the false claims and inaccuracies of Alireza Asgharzadeh. 

 

Some Introductory material from Alireza Asgharzadeh

Asgharzadeh as usual starts his work with conspiracy theories.  He attempts to question all of western historical scholarship because the term Aryan was misused as a racial term in the 19th century.  Today the term Aryan is used simply as an ethnic group. 

 

According to the online etymology dictionary:

Aryan:

1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam). Aryan also was used (1861) by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) to refer to "worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans," which he took to be the original sense. In comparative philology, Aryan was applied (by Pritchard, Whitney, etc.) to "the original Aryan language" (1847; Arian was used in this sense from 1839, but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history), the presumed ancestor of a group of related, inflected languages mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. In this sense it gradually was replaced by Indo-European (q.v.) or Indo-Germanic, except when used to distinguish I.E. languages of India from non-I.E. ones. It came to be applied, however, to the speakers of this group of languages (1851), on the presumption that a race corresponded to the language, especially in racist writings of French diplomat and man of letters J.A. de Gobineau (1816–82), e.g. "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines," 1853–55, and thence it was taken up in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=aryan&searchmode=none

 

 

An essay written a while back also describes the term Aryan in more detail

(As the dictionary correctly asserts Aryans means the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. 

Let us review some of the old sources that explicitly establish why Iran (the land of Arya) and Iranians are Aryans (Iranians) and why the Academia still uses this terms for the Indo-Iranians.  HERODOTUS in his Histories remarks that: “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; “ (7.62).  So here we have a foreign source that refers to part of the Iranians as Arya. 

 

Native sources also describe Iranians by this ethnonym.  Old Persian which is a testament to the antiquity of the Persian language and which is related to most of the languages/dialects spoken in Iran including modern Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Baluchi makes it clear that Iranians referred to themselves as Arya.  The term Ariya appears in the royal inscriptions in three different context: As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun; as the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph) and as the definition of the God of Arya people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription.  For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as “An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock”.  Note that first they describe their clan (Achaemenid) and then tribe/group (Persian) and then their ethnicity Arya.  So here we have good references that both the Medes and Persians referred to themselves as Aryans.  The Medes and Persians were people of western Iranian stock.  Western Iranian languages and dialects including Kurdish, Persian, Baluchi have their roots in the Old Persian and Median languages and are prevalent languages of Iran today.  The OP inscriptions date back approximately to 400-500 B.C.

 

 

Concurrently, or even prior to Old Persian, the word Airya is abundant used in the Avesta and related Zoroastrian literature whose origin lies with the eastern Iranian people.  The Avestan airya always has an ethnic value.  It appears in Yasht literature and in the Wideewdaad.  The land of Aryans is described as Airyana Vaejah in Avesta and in the Pahlavi inscription as Eran-wez.  The Avesta archer Arash (Arash-e-Kamangir) is called the hero of Airya people.  Zoroaster himself is described from the Airya people.  The examples of the ethnic name of Airya in Avesta are too many to enumerate here and the interested reader is referred to the following site: www.avesta.org

 

Let us now briefly touch upon some more pre-Islamic evidence.  The ostraca (an inscribed potsherd) from Parthian Nisa time period (approx. 2100 years ago) provides us with numerous Parthian names related.  Parthian, like Persian, is a Western Iranian language.  Some of the names of the people at that time that begin with prefix Arya are given by:


Aryabām – Aryabānuk –Aryabarzan-Aryabōžan-Aryaxšahrak-Aryanīstak-Aryafriyānak
-Aryasāxt-Aryazan

 

The etymology of such names is fairly known.  The documents from Nisa as well as other Parthian documents prove that the Parthians employed the Zoroastrian calendar.  The names of the months back then is exactly what we use today with a slight modification in pronounciation:

Farwartīn- Artewahišt-Harwatāt-Tir- Hamurtāt-Xšahrewar-Mihr-Āpāxwinī- Ātar –Daθuš- Wahman- Spandāmard

 

 

Strabo, the Greek Geographer and traveler of the Parthian times also mentions the unity of the various Iranian tribes and dialects:

“and the name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations”.  Moses of Khorenat’si the Armenian historian of 5th century A.D. also denotes the Parthians, Medes and Persians collectively as Aryans.  So ancient neighboring people have consistently referred to Iranians as Aryans.  Both Armenian and Greeks are Indo-Europeans but only Indo-Iranians have been known as Aryans throughout history.

 

From the Parthian epoch we transition into the Sassanid era.  Ardeshir the first, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, on the coins minted during his era describes himself as Shahan shah Aryan (Iran).  Where Aryan exactly means the “land of the Arya” which is synonymous with land of Iranians.  His son Shapur, whose triumphs over his enemies are the stuff of legends minted coins with the inscription: “Shahan shah aryan ud anaryan” (The king of Kings of  Iran and Non-Iran).  The reason for anaryan is that he expanded the empire beyond the Aryan lands.  The trilingual inscription erected by his command gives us a more clear description.  The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek.  In Greek the inscription says: “ego … tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi”  which translates to “I am the king of the Aryans”.  In the Middle Persian Shapour says: “I am the Lord of the EranShahr” and in Parthian he says: “I am the Lord of AryanShahr”.  Both AryanShahr/EranShahr here denote the country of Iran.  The name IranShahr has been widely referenced after the Arab conquest by many authors including Tabari the great historian and Abu Rayhan Biruni the great scholar.  So the word Eran actually is derived from Arayanam of the Avesta and it means the place Ary/Er (Parthian and Middle Persian respectively).  As the suffix “an” denotes a place holding for example Gil+an means the land of the Gil (Gilak) who are an Aryan ethnic group of modern Iran.  It was mentioned that Darius the Great referred to his language as Aryan.  The Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the founder of the Kushan empire at Rabatak, which was discovered in 1993 in an unexcavated site in the Afghanistan province of Baghlan clearly refers to this Eastern Iranian language as Arya.  Interestingly enough, Bactrian(Bakhtari) was written using Greek alphabets.

 

 

In the post-Islamic era one can see a clear usage of the term Aryan(Iran) in the work of the 10th century historian Hamzeh Esfahani.  In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” he writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”.

 

 

What has been touched upon so far is just some of the evidence that clearly establishes that Iran and Aryan are the same and furthermore that Iranians have always referred to themselves as Arya in history.  The term Arya has never been applied to other branches of Indo-European people.  This term exclusively denotes the Iranians and Indians.  The eminent linguist Emile Benviste asserts that the Old Iranian Arya is documented solely as an ethnic name.  Aryan denotes a cultural-linguistic community.  Racial anthropology on the other hand points to the fact that Iranians as well as many other Aryan speakers like Kurds and Afghans are part of Caucasoid Mediterranean subtype commonly referred to as Irano-Afghan. 

 

It is very well known fact that Aryan languages (Indo-Iranian) predominate the Iranian plateau but, what is not well known is that, Persian is just one of the Aryan languages.  For example languages and dialects like Baluchi, Kurdish, Talyshi, Gilaki, Laki, Gurani and Luri are also Aryan languages linguistically grouped under Iranian languages and are closely tied to Persian.  Furthermore Persian speakers actually are a slim majority in Iran, but speakers of other languages related to Persian and which are also Aryan languages make another 20-25% of the population (Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, CIA fact book, world Almanac and official government statistic of 1991).  But the term Persian in the western literature is equivalent to Iranian and has a more geographical denotation. 

 

So both the Aryan origin of Iranians as well as the Persian Empire are historical facts that are part of our heritage.  The area of the major non-Aryan language in Iran, which is Azarbaijan, was a center of the Medes who spoke Aryan languages.  The people there today are not different culturally from the rest of Iranians.  The language replacement in that area is a recent phenomenon due to the invasion by Altaic Turco-Mongol speaking tribes.  Such language replacements are common as is the case of English in Ireland and Spanish in Mexico and Turkish in Turkey.  Most of the writers and poets from that area have historically written their work in Persian.  Despite the prevalence of the non-Aryan language—the numerous fire-temples, common culture, common history and common religion and Zoroastrian evidence including the name Azarbaijan (meaning land of Fire in Persian) itself has tied the destiny of this important region of Iran with the rest of Iran.  For further reference see:

 

How old is this common Iranian identity, which has continuously evolved in its present state? In my opinion an identity starts with its oldest common substantial heritage that is shared by its people and continuously preserved.  Archeology has shown that the recently excavated Jiroft civilization of Iran could be at least five thousand years old, and all Iranians and indeed all mankind are proud to share this common heritage.  But the discovery of this civilization and similar civilizations are endeavors of recent times.   The Avesta on the other hand has been preserved continuously amongst Iranians since Zoroaster.  The dating of Avesta has been problematic and scholars give a date of around 3700-3000 years for the Old Avesta and about 500-1000 years later for the Young Avesta.  So it is clear that Iranians have at least 3000 years of continuity in language and literature and culture.  The name Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism permeates in the Shahnameh and other folkloric stories of Iranian people.  The Gathas of Zoroaster is indeed a remarkable part of our Iranian heritage and even as a non-Zoroastrian; all Iranians can appreciate the timelessness of its divine message.  Indeed all humans appreciate it as part of their common heritage.  Iranians have also contributed a great deal to the common Islamic heritage and this part our heritage is equally important.  There has always been a cultural dualism between the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic past, but this was no problem for Ferdowsi who was both a Muslim and Iranian. Based on the solid foundation of one of mankind’s ancient heritage, Iranians of the new millennium should integrate new values and adapt to new ideals while passing down their ancient heritage to the next generation.

 

 

 

 

MacKenzie D.N. Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum Part. 2., inscription of the Seleucid and Parthian periods of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. 2. Parthian, London, P. Lund, Humphries 1976-2001

 

MacKenzie D.N. “Some names from Nisa”.  Peredneaziatskij Sbornik, IV, Moskva (Fs.

 

N. Sims-Williams.  “Further notes on the Bactrian inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese” Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies(Cambridge, September 1995), Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies, N. Sim-Williams, ed. Wiesbaden, pp.  79-92.

 

R.G. Kent. Old Persian. Grammer, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed., New Haven, Conn.

 

R.W. Thomson. History of Armenians by Moses Khorenat’si.  Harvard University Press, 1978.)

 

So Asgharzadeh is simply rehashing what is currently known in scholarship although he tries to take credit for the fact that Aryan is not a race anymore but an ethnic group.  A more detailed study of the ethnic term Aryan and hence the modern name Iran will be given in another section.

 

Asgharzadeh writes about his own work:

 

It analyzes the relationships among European racist ideas, the creation of the Indo-European language family, and the emergence of modern racism in Iran, interrogating the construction of notions such as Aria, Aryan race, and Aryanism in an Iranian context.(pg 2)

 

 

Thus Asgharzadeh is claiming that the concept of Indo-European language was a racist idea!  Indeed the overuse of the word “racist” by such a racist as Alireza Asgharzadeh bores the reader as he fails to provide any proof for racism.  Indeed all Iranians with the exception of perhaps Turkomens are Caucasoid and there is no racial difference between say an Iranian Persian speaker and an Iranian Kurd and an Iranian Azeri.  Thus the profuse utilization of the term “race” and “racism” in a Iranian context is simply meaningless unless Azeris are considered a separate race than other Iranians!  Also today there is no doubt about the existence of an Aryan ethnic group.  It should be noted that the Persian word Nezhad  نژاد  does not mean race in its primary meaning.  Indeed, it’s more established classical meaning is origin and background. 

For example in the Shahnameh we read:

ز تخم فریدون و از کیقباد

فروزنده تر زین نباشد نژاد

 

کسی که از نژاد سیاوش بود

خردمند و بیداد و خامش بود

Also the term Pak – Nezhad (pure origin) in Dehkhoda’s dictionary is described as:

نجیب، کسی که خاندان و اصل آن پاک و خوب و از آلایش و دنائت و رذالت دور باد.

Thus Pak-Nezhad means chivalrous and humble and someone who is virtues. 

 

Thus the term “Nezhad Pak Ariyai” in Persian literature simply means humbe/virtuous/chivalrous/pure(as in virtue and manner) Aryan origin and should not be used interchangeably with the English term “Aryan Race” which at one time was meant to denote a racial group.  Such blatant ignorance and invalid juxtaposition shown by Alireza Asgharzadeh is due to the fact that he wants to connect more than 3000+ years of Iranian history with that of Nazi Germany and other groups that have abused the term Aryan. 

 

Asgharzadeh, after praising Edward Said, quotes Bernard Lewis in order to support his theories (Indeed one aspect of Asgharzadeh is that he will use any source, no matter how disgraceful like Purpirar and Zehtabi in order to prove a certain point):

 

Bernard Lewis maintains that a rediscovery of Iran's past became only possible in the third-quarter of the nineteenth century, when "Iranian intellectuals read European scholarship and literature, and began to realize that they too had an ancient and glorious past to which they could lay claim"(pg 3)

 

The above is actually not true and more than likely misinterpreted. Iranians were always aware that they had a pre-Islamic past.  Indeed the Persian epic literature of Shahnameh and the Persian epics of Khusraw o Shirin and Bahram Gur by another Iranian poet Nizami clearly show that Iranians were aware of their past.   Indeed the story of Dara and Eskandar as recounted by Persian poets such as Ferdowsi and Nizami also show awareness of Iran’s pre-Islamic past.  The influence of European literature was simply to refine the awareness of the Iranian past by subtracting the mythical portion that had been intertwined with Irons past history.    The perfect proof is simply the profound impact of Shahnameh and other Sassanid and Parthian stories (Vis o Ramin) and even stories partly based on the Achaemenid past (Darab Nameh) have had on Iranian culture and literature.  So Iranians where always aware of their past and mythology.  Zoroaster is mentioned in the Shahnameh.  In a later section, the author will say more on the mythification of Iranian history by Iranians themselves.

Asgharzadeh then blames Europeans and writes:

 

‘’ One of the overall objective of this study is to show how the above-mentioned tendencies have come together to maintain the privileged status of the Persian ethnic group and its language while at the same time minori-tizing, foreignizing, and vilifying all the other ethnicities, nationalities, and languages.”(pg 6)

 

In actuality, as shown in the previous Chapters, Persian had a special status which Turkish did not during Irons history.  If there was any mineralization going on it was because of Turkish dynasties.  Also Asgharzadeh fails to discuss the impact of pan-Turkist meddling in Iranian Affairs during WWI and the subsequent negative viewpoint of Turkish by Iranian Azerbaijanis.  None of these facts have anything to do with Western historians and are simply historical facts ignored by Alireza Asgharzadeh.

 

Falsification of Iran’s history by Asgharzadeh

Asgharzadeh starts his falsification and selective viewpoint of Iranian history and tries to inject modern terms of political correctness in order to gain an emotional perspective on scientific issues:

 

“The history of what is now known as Iran is a history of various ethnic groups, languages, and cultures coexisting amongst one another from time immemorial. For as long as history can remember, ever since the establish­ment of the first Elamite civilization around 5000 BC, Iran has been a multiracial, multicultural, and multilingual society”(pg 8)

 

Here Asgharzadeh has off shooted by at least 2000 years and identified the Elamite civilization as from 5000 BC!  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

 

“Whereas the Iranian plateau did not experience the rise of urban, literate civilization in the late 4th and early 3rd millennia on the Mesopotamian pattern, lowland Khuzestan did. There Elamite civilization was centered. Geographically, Elam included more than Khuzestan; it was a combination of the lowlands and the immediate highland areas to the north and east.”

(Iran, ancient. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32102)

 

Thus Elam at best contained 1/4 the of the land of modern Iran.  It should be noted that the Elamite civilization had nothing to do with Turks.  Alireza Asgharzadeh, influenced by the revisionist material of Zehtabi claims:

“They had their own unique alphabet, and they spoke an agglutinative, non-Indo-European, non-Semitic language.”(pg 8)

 

It should be noted that taking one grammatical feature of Elamite and comparing to another language and claiming affinity is not the standard method of linguistics.  Elamite is considered almost universally as an isolate language although some have suggested that it belongs to the Elamo-Dravidian family.  Thus Alireza Asgharzadeh in the above sentence intentionally forgets to mention that Elamite is also a non-Altaic and non-Turkic language.

 

Asgharzadeh continues his revisionism on the same page:

 

The first wave of these Indo-European immigrants arrived in Iran around 2000 BC. Finding the area extremely rich and resourceful, they encouraged other Aryan nomadic groups to join them. Around 1200 BC these new immi­grants had reached western and central parts of current Iran. The first Indo-European state was created in Iran in 550 BC through the disintegration and subsequent replacement of the Median dynasty by the Achaemenians (see also Dandamaev, 1989; Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1989).(pg 8)

 

In actuality, as shown extensively in the previous chapter under the origin of the Medes, the Medes are considered an Aryan ethnic group by all modern scholars.  Neither Dandamaev or Lukonin has ever claimed that the Medes are not Aryan.  Asgharzadeh, knows this and does not provide a page either.  Indeed even before the Medes, one can show that the Indo-Iranian Mitanni established a state with an Aryan ruling class:

 

Indo-Iranian empire centered in northern Mesopotamia that flourished from about 1500 to about 1360 BC. At its height the empire extended from Kirkuk (ancient Arrapkha) and the Zagros Mountains in the east through Assyria to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Its heartland was the Khabur River region, where Wassukkani, its capital, was probably located.

("Mitanni." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.)

 

Another civilization that was party Aryan and partly either isolate or Hurrian was the Manneans.

 

According to Professor Zadok:

“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.”

Furthermore analyzing onomastic samples, he states:

“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 Aza, are explicable in Old Iranian terms.”

MANNEA by R. Zadok in Encyclopaedia Iranica

 

Asgharzadeh continues his revisionism by bashing Sassanids (not pointing out anything positive although in another article he claims absurdly that the Sassanid story of Khusraw and Shirin is part of Turkic culture! Whereas we know it is Persian/Iranian culture)

 

Thus Alireza Asgharzadeh’s attempt at de-Iranization of the Medes and Mitanni civilizations is simply part of the pan-Turkist attack on Iranian history.  It would be out of the scope of this review to write about the resistance of Iranians against Arab invasions during the Sassanid era.  Many historians now agree that the Sassanid defeat was a military defeat and there was Iranian resistance.  Indeed the assassination of the 2nd caliph Omar by Abu LuLu Majoosi (Piruz Nahavandi) shows that Iranian resistance existed.

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh then tries to make a hidden point:

 

Such important Iranian scholars as Al-Razi (d. 932), Al-Khawrizmi (780-850), Al-Biruni (973-1048), and Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (973-1037) produced their major works in Arabic.(pg 9)

 

 

He conviently ignores the fact that both Ibn Sina and Al-Biruni have also produced major works in Persian.  For example Avicenna wrote the Daneshnaameyeh ‘Alai in Persian which is a major encyclopedic work.  Interestingly enough, many pan-turkists have attempted to simply appropriate Avicenna and Al-Biruni as Turkic although it is clear that these two giant figures were Iranians.

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/pursinabahmanyar.htm

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/biruni_khwarazmi/birunipasokhbehanirani.htm

 

Although certaintly true that Arabic at the time was the scientific language and preferred by Iranian scientists, it is worth reviewing here a portion of Al-Biruni’s writing in Persian from the book Al-Tafhim which clearly displayes awareness of an ancient Iranian nationhood and sense of identity and past.

 

«ابوريحان بيروني» دانش‌مند نام‌دار ايراني (440-362 ق) در كتاب پارسي خود «التفهيم لاوائل صناعت التنجيم» گزارشي بسيار رسا و شيوا و حاوي نكاتي بي‌نظير و ارزش‌مند از جشن‌هاي ايرانيان عرضه داشته است. وي مي‌نويسد (2):
«نوروز چيست؟
- نخستين روز است از فروردين ماه و از اين جهت، روز نو نام كرده‌اند؛ زيرا كه پيشاني سال نو است و آن چه از پس اوست از اين پنج روز [= پنج روز اول فروردين] همه جشن‌هاست. و ششم فروردين ماه را «نوروز بزرگ» دارند؛ زيرا كه خسروان بدان پنج روز حق‌هاي حشم و گروهان و بزرگان بگزاردندي و حاجت‌ها روا كردني، آن گاه بدين روز ششم خلوت كردندي خاصگان را. و اعتقاد پارسيان اندر نوروز نخستين آن است كه اول روزي است از زمانه و بدو، فلك آغازيد گشتن.
تيرگان چيست؟
- سيزدهم روز است از تيرماه. و نام‌اش تير است هم نام ماه خويش، و همچنين است به هر ماهي آن روز كه همنام‌اش باشد، او را جشن دارند. و بدين تيرگان گفتند كه «آرش» تير انداخت از بهر صلح منوچهر كه با افراسياب تركي كرده است بر تير پرتابي از مملكت…
مهرگان چيست؟
- شانزدهم روز است از مهرماه و نام‌اش مهر. و اندر اين روز «افريدون» ظفر يافت بر «بيوراسپ» جادو، آن كه معروف است به ضحاك. و به كوه دماوند بازداشت و روزها كه سپس [= پس از] مهرگان است، همه جشن‌اند بر كردار (= مانند) آن چه از پس نوروز بود. و ششم آن مهرگان بزرگ بود و «رام» روز نام است و بدين دانندش.
پروردگان چيست؟
- پنج روز پسين اندر آبان ماه [است] و سبب نام كردن آن چنان است كه گبركان [= زرتشتيان] اندرين پنج روز خورش و شراب نهادند روان‌هاي مردگان را. و همي گويند كه جان مرده بيايد و از آن غذا گيرد. و چون از پس آبان ماه پنج روز افزوني بوده است، آنك [= اينك] «اندرگاه» خوانند. گروهي از ايشان پنداشتند كه اين روز «پروردگان» است و خلاف به ميان آمد و اندر كيش ايشان مهم چيزي بود. پس هر دو پنج [روز] را به كار بردند از جهت احتياط را. و بيست و ششم روزِ آبان ماه، فروردگان [= پروردگان] كردند و آخرشان، آخر دزديده. و جمله فروردگان ده روز گشت. (3)
برنشستن كوسه [= سوار شدن مرد بدون موي صورت] چيست؟
- آذر ماه به روزگار خسروان، اولِ بهار بوده است (4). و نخستين روز از وي - از بهر فال - مردي بيامدي كوسه، برنشسته بر خري و به دست كلاغي گرفته و به بادبيزن خويشتن باد همي‌زدي و زمستان را وداع همي‌كردي و از مردمان بدان چيزي يافتي. و به زمانه‌ي ما به شيراز همي‌كرده‌اند و ضريبت [= خراج] پِذرفته از عامل،‌ تا هر چه ستاند از بامداد تا نيمروز به ضريبت دهد و تا نماز ديگر [= نماز عصر] از بهر خويشتن را بستاند (5) و اگر از پسِ نماز ديگر بيابندش، سيلي خورد از هر كسي.
بهمنجه چيست؟
- بهمن روز است از بهمن ماه [= دومين روز ماه]. و بدين روز، بهمن [= برف] سپيد به شير خالص پاك خورند و گويند كه حفظ [= حافظه] فزايد مردم را و فرامشتي [= فراموشي] ببرد. و اما به خراسان مهماني كنند بر ديگي كه اندر او از هر دانه‌ي خوردني كنند [= بريزند] و گوشت هر حيواني و مرغي كه حلال‌اند و آن چه اندر آن وقت بدان بقعت [= ناحيه] يافته شود از تره و نبات.
سده چيست؟
- آبان روز است از بهمن ماه و آن دهم روز بود. و اندر شب‌اش كه ميان روز دهم است و ميان روز يازدهم، آتش زنند به گوز [= درخت گردو] و بادام و گرد بر گرد آن شراب خورند و لهو و شادي كنند. و نيز گروهي از آن بگذرند بسوزانيدن جانوران. اما [وجه تسميه‌ي سده] چنان است كه از او [= روز سده] تا نوروز، پنجاه روز است و پنجاه شب. و نيز گفتند كه اندرين روز از فرزندان پدر نخستين [= گيومرث]، صد تن تمام شدند (6).
گهنبار چيست؟
- روزگار سال، پارها كرده است زرادشت و گفته است كه به هر پاره‌اي [از سال]، ايزد تعالي گونه‌اي [از مخلوقات] را آفريده است؛ چون آسمان و زمين و آب و گياه و جانور و مردم، تا عالم به سالي تمام آفريده شد. و به اول هر يكي از اين پاره‌ها، پنج روز است، نام‌شان «گهنبار» (Gahanbar)».

 

يادداشت‌ها:
1 - براي كسب آگاهي‌هاي بيش‌تر درباره‌ي جشن‌هاي ايرانيان، نگاه كنيد به: «تاريخ ايران [كمبريج]»، جلد سوم، بخش دوم، گردآورنده: احسان يارشاطر، ترجمه‌ي حسن انوشه، انتشارات اميركبير، 1377، فصل بيست و يكم (ب)
2 - برگرفته از: «گنجينه‌ي سخن»، تأليف دكتر ذبيح الله صفا، انتشارات اميركبير، 1370، جلد يكم، ص 292-289
3 - در برهه‌هايي از تاريخ ايران، نخستين ماه سال، آذر بود و نوروز در آغاز اين ماه جشن گرفته مي‌شد و جشن فروردگان نيز در ده روز آخر سال، يعني پنج روز آخر آبان ماه به علاوه‌ي پنج روز اضافه‌ي حاصل از شمارش كبيسه‌ها، برگزار مي‌شد. بعدها كه نوروز به و فروردين ماه منتقل شد، جشن فروردگان نيز در روزهاي واپسين اسفند ماه برگزار گرديد.
4 - نگاه كنيد به يادداشت شماره 3
5 - پول‌هايي كه كوسه در طي اين مراسم از هنگام بامداد تا ظهر، از مردم مي‌گيرد، به عامل خراج شهر مي‌دهد و پول‌هايي را كه از ظهر تا عصر مي‌گيرد، براي خود برمي‌دارد.
6 - درباره‌ي ريشه‌شناسي نام «سده» نگاه كنيد به: «جستاري چند در فرهنگ ايران»، دكتر مهرداد بهار،‌ انتشارات فكر روز، 1374، ص 244-237

 

 Thus Asgharzadeh conviently ignores the Persian works of these two giants of Irano-Islamic history in order to deny Iranian heritage as much as possible.  Similar to Naser Purpirar who will claim that all the above is written by Jews in the last century!

Asgharzadeh then remarks on the Safavids:

In the year 1501, Shah Ismail Safavi of Ardabil was able to bring together the local dynasties of Qaraqoyunlu and Aqqoyunlu and found the Safavid dynasty. (pg 10)

 

In actuality Shah Ismail Safavi fought brutal war against the Aq-Qoyunlu.  The Qaraqoyunlu had already been taken over by the Aq-Qoyunlu before Ismail’s birth!  So unlike the false claim of Alireza Asgharzadeh, the Qaraqounlu and Aq-Qoyunlu where not brought together by Ismail I!  And Ismail I simply defeated a force of 30,000 Qaraqoynlu under Alwand, and shortly afterwards entered Tabriz (R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition).

The Safavid succeeded in establishing Shi'ism as the national religion of Iran and uniting the country from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf, and from Mesopotamia to India and Central Asia. Under the Safavids, various tribes and ethnic groups remained relatively autonomous in practicing their traditions, cultures, and languages within the loosely governed empire (Mazzaoui, 1972; Woods, 1976; Savory, 1980).(pg 10)

 

Again Asgharzadeh falsifies history and does not show exactly where any of these scholars made such claims.  During the Safavid era numerous Zoroastrian and Sunni Muslims were simply massacared and wiped out.  The following article details this sufficiently:

http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Islamic%20era%20histroy%20of%20Zoroastrians%20of%20Iran.htm

 

Asgharzadeh in one of his anti-Iranian rants in a Azerbaijani republic magazine writes:

“ The Orientalist historiography of the region paints a positive image of the cruel Achaemenid rulers”!!

 

It is very important to note that for pan-turkist nationalists like Asgharzadeh, the Safavids were Turks (in actuality they were not as will be shown) and were tolerant (which they were not)!  and there was no ethnic rivalry! (which is not true).  Part of the reason why Sunni Kurds do not like the Safavids is due to the persecution of Sunnis during the Safavid era.   Although Cyrus the Great for example did not persecute anyone for their religion like Ismail I did, for a racist like Asgharzadeh, Cyrus the great deserves to be derided because he is Persian whereas Ismail I deserves praises because he might have been Turkic or wrote Turkic.  Also it is important to note that during the Safavid era, there was a Irano-Turko rivalry. 

 

While Orientalists and the dominant Pars-centered literature attempted to present the Safavids as Persians, the fact remained that they were of Turkic origin and Azeri-Turkic was the main language of Shah Ismail's court, fol­lowed by Farsi and Arabic, respectively. Moreover, Shah Ismail was a great lover of poetry and literature. Under the pen name Khatayi, he produced his famous "Divani Xetayi" in Azeri-Turkic (see Birdogan, 2001). A unique liter­ary style known as Qoshma was also introduced in this period, utilized, and developed by Shah Ismail and later on by his successor Shah Tahmasp. (pg 8)

In actuality not only orientalists and Iranian literature, but even unbiased Turkish scholars consider the Safavid male lineage to be of Iranian-Kurdish origin.  Also since the Safavid rules an empire that was mainly Iranian in speech, and their center was Isfahan, it is natural to consider them a Persian empire.  Their geographical area after all was Persia.  It should be noted that unlike what Asgharzadeh claims, the Safavids were not of Turkic origin.  Any dynasty including Seljuqids, Ghaznavids and Abbassid etc. are known by their male line in histography. 

On the Safavid it is worth reviewing why the majority opinion considers them to be of Iranian and non-Turkic origin.

According to Professor Roger Savory, the eminent Safavid historian:

The origins of the Safawid family are shrouded in some mystery, and the mystery is compounded by falsifications which were perpetrated, probably during the reign of Ismā_īl I and certainly during that of  Tahmāsp I, in order to produce an “official” Safawid genealogy. (R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition)

 

 

Similarly Professor Savory concludes:

“There seems now to be a consensus among scholars that the Safavid family hailed from Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, finally settling in the 5th/11th century at Ardabil.”

(R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition)

 

Any Safavid historian knows that oldest extant book on the genealogy of the Safavid family and the only one that is pre-1501 (before the establishment and political conquest of the dynasty) is titled “Safwat as-Safa”.  This book was written by Ibn Bazzaz.  Ibn Bazzaz, himself a disciple of Shaykh Sadr-al-Din Ardabili, the son of the Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili.  In the oldest extant manuscript of Ibn Bazzaz, the Shaykh is a descendant of a noble and famous Kurdish men named Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah the Kurd of Sanjan (in Kurdistan).   فیروز شاه زرین کلاه الکرد السنجانی

 

The Turkish Scholar Zeki Velid Togan examined the two oldest extant manuscripts of the Safwat as-Safa and compared two pre-1501 manuscripts with a manuscript after 1501. All references to the Sunnism of the Shaykh and '''Kurdish origin of Firuz''' were removed in the post-1501 manuscripts.  For example the words: “Since the ancestry of Firuz was Kurdish”  are clearly mentioned in the two oldest extant manuscript of the Safwat As-Safa (both of them pre-1501).

چون نسبت پیروز با کرد رفت

چون نسبت پیروز کرد رفت

(Z. V. Togan, "Sur l’Origine des Safavides," in Melanges Louis Massignon, Damascus , 1957, III, pp. 349.)

 

Professor.  Zeki Velid Togan remarks: "II ne fait aucun doute que les souverains Shah Isma'il et Shah Tahmasb se sont donne toutes les peines du monde pour effacer de l'histoire leur origin e kurde, pour attribuer au kurde Firouz la qualité de descendant du Prophète, et pour faire valoir que le Shaykh Safi ètait un shaykh turc shiite, auteur de poèmes turcs." Translation: There is not any doubt that the sovereigns Shah Ismail and Shah Tahmasb gave each other all the sorrows of the world to erase their history, their Kurdish origin, to allot to Kurdish Firouz the quality of descendant of the Prophet, and to make the point that Shaykh Safï was a Turkish shaykh shiite and Turkish author of poems)(Z. V. Togan, "Sur l’Origine des Safavides," in Melanges Louis Massignon, Damascus , 1957, III, pp. 345-57).

 

Now is it Professor Togan or orientalist or Kasravis fault that the oldest extant manuscript point to a non-Turkic and Iranian origin for the Safavids?

 

Professor Roger Savory remarks on the Safwat As-Safa:

 

“Ebn Bazzaz completed this voluminous work (over 800 folios) around 759/1358, only twenty-four years after the death of Shaikh Safi-al-Din. It is written in a straightforward style, without much rhetorical embellishment.  Ideologically-motivated alterations were already present in a manuscript dated 914/1508, during the reign of Shah Esmail I. Shah Tahmasb (930-84/1524-76) ordered Mir Abul-Fatha Hosayn to produce a revised edition of the Safwat al-Safa.  This official version contains textual changes designed to obscure the '''Kurdish origins of the Safavid family''' and to vindicate their claim to descent from the Imams.”

 

(R.M. Savory. Ebn Bazzaz. Encyclopedia Iranica)

 

Indeed in none of the Safavid manuscripts, even after 1501, do we hear about Turkic lineage of the Safavid family, since the Safavid were intent on claiming to be descendants of Imams.  For example in the silsilat an-Nasab, written almost 300 years after the Safwat as-Safa, one of the ancestors of the Shaykh by the name Abu bakr was dropped (due to Abu Bakr being a Sunni name mainly) and the mention of the Kurdishness of Firuz was erased and the Safavids were connected to the holy prophet of Islam.   Even in this book, the ancestry of the Safavid family is traced to Hijaz.  Thus the reason the Safavids are considered Iranic in origin despite the linguistic turkification of the family is due to the fact that their ancestry is Kurdish and dynasties are known by their male lineage.

 

Many scholars seem to agree on the Iranian origin of Firuz Shah Zarin Kolah.

 

According to Professor Richard Tapper(Tapper, Richard, FRONTIER NOMADS OF IRAN. A political and social history of the Shahsevan. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997. pp 39.)

 

“The Safavid Shahs who ruled Iran between 1501 and 1722 descended from Sheikh Sari ad-Din of Ardabil (1252 1334). Sheikh Safi and his immediate successors were renowned as holy ascetic Sufis. Their own origins were obscure: '''probably of Kurdish or Iranian extraction''', they later claimed descent from the Prophet. They acquired a widespread following at first among the Local Iranian population, and later among die Turkic tribes people who had been advancing from Central Asia into Azarbaijan and Anatolia from the eleventh century onwards.”

 

Professor Heinz Halm declares (Heinz Halm, ''Shi'ism'', translated by Janet Watson. New Material translated by Marian Hill, 2nd edition, Columbia University Press, pp 75):

 

The eponymous forfather of the later Safavid dynasty, Shakh Safi al-din Ishaq was a dervish probably '''of Kurdish origin''' who enjoyed high religious prestige in his home town of Ardabil in Azarbayjan)

Professor Ehsan Yarshater also opines:

“the early Safavids, originally an '''Iranian-speaking clan''' (as evidenced by the quatrains of Shaikh Safi-al-Din, their eponymous ancestor, and by his biography), became Turkified and adopted Turkish as their vernacular...”

(E. Yarshater, ''Encyclopaedia Iranica'', "The Iranian Language of Azerbaijan")

Professor Kathryn Babayan of Michigian University did her thesis in Princeton University on the Safavids and is the author of the book titled
Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran. In her book, she also alludes to the oldest and only pre-1501 biography of Shaykh Safi ad-Din:

 “It is true that during their revolutionary phase (1447-1501), Safavi guides had played on their descent from the family of the Prophet.  The hagiography of the founder of the Safavi order, Shaykh Safi al-Din Safvat al-Safa written by Ibn Bazzaz in 1350-was tampered with during this very phase.  An initial stage of revisions saw the transformation of Safavi identity as Sunni Kurds into Arab blood descendants of Muhammad.”(Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs and Messiahs: Cultural Landscapes of Early Modern Iran, Cambridge, Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press, 2002. pg 143)

 

"From the evidence available, at the present time, it is certain that the Safavid family was of indigineous Iranian stock, and not of Turkish ancestry as it is sometimes claimed. It is probable that the family originated in Persian Kurdistan, and later moved to Azerbaijan, where they adopted the Azari form of Turkish spoken there, and eventually settled in the small town of Ardabil sometimes during the eleventh century.”( Sigfried J. De Laet. History of humanity: scientific and cultural development. Taylor & Francis. 2005. pg 259)

Besides the tati poetry and the only pre-1501 Safavid geneology that has survived, another parameter that makes the Iranian origin of the Shaykh more clear is that he was of Shafi’i persuasion.  Shafi’i is one of the four schools of thought in Sunni Islam.  Hamdullah Mustaufi who lived during the time of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili writes on the city of Ardabil:

اکثر (مردم) بر مذهب شافعی اند،  مرید شیخ صفی الدین علیه الرحمه اند

Indeed, if one looks throughout history, the Sunnism espoused by Turkic groups has always been of Hanafi (another Sunni sect) extraction.  Although Iranians mainly in Khorasan were of Hanafi persuasion those in the west of Iran prior to Turkification were mainly Shafii like the Shaykh.  The Ottomons and Seljuqs were Hanafi.  Togrul the Seljuq ordered all the leaders of Shafii Islam to be imprisoned and many of them were exiled.  This aspects of Hanafism and their embryonic connections to Turkic groups is fully describe by C.E. Bosworth. (C.E. Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1200) in Camb. Hist. Iran V.  pp 40-50)

 

Today too all Sunni Turkish speakers (Anatolia) and Turks (Central Asia) are followers of the Hanafi school of thought.  But all Sunni Kurds consistently follow Shafii Sunni Islam.

 

So putting all these factors together, it should not surprise Alireza Asgharzadeh that the Iranic origin of Shaykh Safi ad-din Ardabili is more probable and taken more seriously in the scholarly community than the Turkic origin and even a famous Turkish speaking scholar like Zekki Velid Togan admits it.

 

Also approximately 50 verses of the poetry of Shah ismail I has also survived. 

Sam Mirza, the son of Ismail I was himself a poet and composed his poetry in Persian.   He also compiled an anthology of contemporary poetry.( Emeri “van” Donzel, Islamic Desk Reference, Brill Academic Publishers, 1994, pp 393) and refers to his fathers Persian poetry. 

 

Shah Ismail I was also deeply influenced by the Persian literary tradition of Iran, particularly by the “Shahnama” of Ferdowsi, which probably explains the fact that he named all of his sons after Shāhnāma-characters. Dickson and Welch suggest that Ismāil's "Shāhnāmaye Shāhī" was intended as a present to the young Tahmāsp(M.B. Dickson and S.C. Welch, The Houghton Shahnameh 2 vols (Cambridge Mmssachusetts and London. 1981. See: pg 34 of Volume I)).   After defeating Muhammad Shaybāni's Uzbeks, Ismāil asked Hātefī, a famous poet from  Khorasan to write a Shāhnāma-like epic about his victories and his newly established dynasty. Although the epic was left unfinished, it was an example of Mathnawis in the heroic style of the Shāhnāma written later on for the Safavid kings.( R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition)

 

 

Also according to Roger Savory:

 

Friction was inevitable because, as Minorsky put it, the Qiizilbash “were not

party to the national Persian tradition. Like oil and water, the Turcomans and the Persians did not mix freely, and the dual character of the population profoundly affected both the military and civil administration.  Each faction saw the other in terms of racial stereotypes.  The Persians saw the Qizilbash as fighting men of only moderate intelligence. The Qizilbash considered the Persians effete, and referred to them by the pejorative term “Tajik” i.e. non-Turk. (R.M. Savory, Safavids, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd edition)

 

Furthermore he states:

 

Between 1508 and 1524, the year of Esmail death, the shah appointed five successive Persians to the office of wakil. Of the five, the first died a year or so after his appointment, and one chronicle makes the significant statement that he "weakened the position of the Turks"

 (R.M. Savory, Encyclopedia Iranica. Ismail Safavi)

 

 

Vladimir Minorsky remarks:

“Shah Ismail, even though he must have been bi-lingual from birth, was not writing for his own heart's delight.  He had to address his adherents in a language fully intelligible to them, and thus the choice of the Turcoman Turkish became a necessity for him.  Shah Isma/il's son Sam-mirza states that his father wrote also in Persian, and as a sample quotes one single verse. Some traces of Persian poetry are found in one Paris MS. ; but with this exception, all the known copies of Khatais divan are entirely in Turkish.

 

The question of the language used by Shah Ismail is not identical with that of his "race" or "nationality". His ancestry was mixed: one of his grandmothers was a Greek princess of Trebizond. Hinz, Aufstieg, 74, comes to the conclusion that the blood in his veins was chiefly non-Turkish. Already, his son Shah Tahmasp began to get rid of his Turcoman praetorians.”( V. Minorsky, The Poetry of Shah Ismail, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 10, No. 4. (1942), pp. 1053). 

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh intentionally forgets that the Safavids supported and patronized the Shahnameh (something pan-turkists would never be able to do).  Indeed while Asgharzadeh in a recent interview has called the stories of the Shahnameh as Mumbo-Jumbo (although the only Mumbo-Jumbo so far is the book of Asgharzadeh), we can clearly see that the Safavids considered themselves attached to Shahnameh and Iranian/Persian traditions.  One wonders why the Safavids, if they were such Turkic nationalists as pan-turkists want us to believe did not support and patronize Turkic mythology?  Why did the Safavid kings from Ismail I attempted to weaken the Qizilbash forces from the beginning?  Why did Shah Tahmasp and Abbas tried to weaken the Qizilbash forces?  So Safavids, who were of mixed origin with a Kurdish fatherline were not the “Turkic nationalist” dynasty that pan-Turkists want us to believe.

 

Official Language of Iran and Asgharzadeh’s hiding of the truth

 

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh remarks:

At this time, the country was ruled by the Azeri-speaking Qajars, whose language and ethnic policies were not discriminatory and exclusionary, based on language or ethnicity. Under the Qajars, no single language was elevated to the status of official/national language of the country,(pg 11)

 

The above again shows the intentional falsification of facts by Alireza Asgharzadeh.  This time I am forced to show a source with an anti-Iran bias to prove Asgharzadeh wrong.  Persian was officially recognized in 1906 way before 1925 and during the Qajar administration through the constitutional revolution.  The same constitutional revolution which Azerbaijanis had a large role to play in.

 

In the book “The Kurds: Culture and Language Rights” we read:

 

“The first constitution of Iran, adopted in 1906, by the Qajar dynasty (1779-1925), proclaimed that Persian  was the official language of the multilingual country, although it was not until the Pahlavi dynasty came to power in 1925 that the central government was able to implement this stipulation effectively.

 

In 1923, Government offices were instructed to use Persian in all written and oral communications.  A Circular sent by the Central Office of Education of Azerbaijan province to the education offices of the region, including that of the Kurdish city of Mahabad, provided that:”On orders of the Prime Minister it has been prescribed to introduce the Persian language in all provinces especially in schools.  You may therefore notify all the schools under your jurisdiction to fully abide by this and conduct all their affairs in Persian language..and the members of your office must follow the same while talking’’(Kerim Yildiz, Georgina Fryer, Kurdish Human Rights Project, ‘’The Kurds: Culture and Language Rights’’, Kurdish Human Rights Project, 2004, pg 72)

 

 

 

Professor Tasduez Swietchowski, a relative pro-Azerbaijan republic writes:

 

“The crisis in Iran came to a head in December 1905, when the Russian Revolution had already crested. A long series of disturbances, including the bast, an act of taking sanctuary, in this case on the grounds of the British legation, forced the Shah, Muzaffar al-Din (1896-1907), to yield to popular demands, much as Nicholas II had to do in Russia: on August 5, 1906, he signed a law proclaiming a consti­tution under which the Majlis (parliament) was to be elected on the basis of a restricted franchise that benefited primarily the interests of the clergy and the bazaar merchants. The constitution included the provision that made Persian the official language, an acknowledge­ment of the historical rivalry of Persian and Turkic elements and a departure from the long tradition of their symbiosis in Iran.” ( Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. p 29. ISBN: 0231070683)

 

 

Indeed according to the same author:

“The hold on of Persian as the chief literary language in (caucasus) Azerbaijan was broken, followed by rejection of classical Azerbaijani, an artificially heavily Iranized idiom that had long been in use along with Persian, though in a secondary position’’( T. Swietochowski, Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity. in a Muslim Community, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp 26 )

 

Thus it was natural for Persian, which had the oldest continous tradition and most expansive literature to become an official language of Iran in 1906.  Classical Azerbaijani also was never on equal terms with Persian during the Qajar era.  It should be noted that Persian was the standard language of education in Iran during the Qajar era.  For example in the autobiography of Ayatollah Mohammad Hosayn Tabataba’I, himself from Tabriz, we read:

 

“The present writer, Mohammad Hosayn Tabataba’i was born into a family of scholars in Tabriz in 1271 A.H. solar/1892 A.D.  I lost my mother when I was five years old, and my father when I was nine.  To provide for our support, our gaurdian (the executor of my father’s estate) placed my one younger brother and myself in the care of a servant and maidservant.  Shorly after our father’s death, we were sent to primary school, and then, in time, to secondary school.  Eventually, our schooling was entrusted to a tutor who made home visits; in this way we studied Farsi and primary subjects for six years”

 

There was in those days no set program for primary studies.  I remember that, over the period from 1290/1911 to 1296/1917, I studied the Noble Qur’an, which normally was taught before all else, Sa’adi’s Golestan and Bustan, the Illustrated Nesab and Akhlaq, the Anvar-e Sohayli, the Tarikh-e Mo’jam, the writing of Amir-e- Nezami, and the Irshad al-Hisab.” (Allameh Sayyed Mohammad Hosayn Tabataba’I, “Islamic Teachings an Overview”, Translated by R. Campbell, Printed and bound in Beirut –Lebanon, Second Prining: 1991)

 

As we can see, the normal education of that time consisted of Persian and Arabic for the literate class.  There was no mass teaching of Turkish in Azerbaijan or anywhere.  The language of intellectuals in Iran was Persian.  None of these facts have been mentioned by Asgharzadeh, simply because for pan-Turkists, such simple facts are unbearable.

 

The bogus lie that the Pahlavids made Persian an official language is repeated again and again by Alireza Asgharzadeh. Indeed not only Azerbaijanis (one of the main if not the main components of the constitutional revolution) accepted and made Persian the official language of Iran, but they were the major proposers of modern Iranian nationalism and centralization and integrationist policies. 

 

Another lie that is propagated by pan-turkists and Alireza Asgharzadeh is that Turkish is banned in Iran.  That is completely false.  Turkish is simply not the official language as was the case in 1906 when it was not an official language.  Today in Iran there are Azeri newspapers, summer   class, university level courses, television, radio, music etc.. broadcast in Iran.  More will be written with regards to this matter.  Also Qajar’s were disliked by many people and tribes in Iran including Kurds, Lurs, Bakhtiaris and Baluchs.  Had Qajars been so great as Alireza Asgharzadeh describes them, they would not be known as incompetent and disliked by most Iranians. 

 

The only issue is that Azeri Turkish is simply not the official language of Iran.  Given the fact that it is only the majority language in 3 provinces of Iran and it is concentrated mainly in NW Iran and is spoken by less than 20% of the population, it seems natural that it is not an official language.  We will show in the next section how pan-turkists like Alireza Asgharzadeh try to makeup demographic data in order to expand pan-Turkist policies.

 

But the unending lie that Persian was made official in 1925 or that Rezashah imposed Persian is continuously smattered throughout the hate book of Asgharzadeh.

 

Bogus Census of Demographics of Iran by Asgharzadeh

 

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh claims that Azerbaijanis are 37% of Iran's population.  Then he refers to these sources:

The above estimates are taken from a variety of sources, including Ethnologue, (2002); HRW (1997); Hassanpour (1992a); Aghajanian (1983); Nyrop (1978); Abrahamian (1970); and Aliev (1966).

 

Firstly we should remember that the term “Persian” has various meanings.  In terms of ethnic group, one may argue that a “Persian” ethnic group encompasses all Iranic speakers who are a heir to the Sassanid, Shahnameh mythology and Zoroastrian civilizations.  Modern Persian “Dari” speakers are a branch of the ancient Iranians with admixture from Old Persians, Medes, Parthians and other Iranic groups of the past.  In another definition, the term Persian and Iranian have been used equivalently.  For example, the definition of Persian according www.dictionary.com gives:

“

1) of or pertaining to ancient and recent Persia (now Iran), its people, or their language.

2) a member of the native peoples of Iran, descended in part from the ancient Iranians.

3) a citizen of ancient Persia.

4) an Iranian language, the principal language of Iran and western Afghanistan, in its historical and modern forms. Compare Old Persian, Pahlavi, Farsi.

5) Architecture. a figure of a man used as a column.

(Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.)

 “

 

For Alireza Asgharzadeh, the term Persian is equivalent to Farsi speakers.  This author takes this definition since the Median, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid heritage is part of the greater Iranian heritage.

 

Despite the difference, modern Persian speakers are the largest group in Iran and if we take speakers of other Iranian dialects that are close to Persian, we obtain approximately 80% of Irans modern population.

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh has claim to use a variety of sources.  But none of them with the exception of one have taken his false claim.  And the one source that agrees with Asgharzadeh is actually faulty as shown below.

 

It should be noted that Hassanpour, Abrahamian and Aghajanian were checked by this author and none of them claim the false census of Asgharzadeh.  HRW (Human rights watch) has no representatives in Iran and has never done a census in Iran. 

For example Hassanpour claims 10% of Iran is Kurdish and does not claim anywhere that Azeris are 37%!.

 Abrahamian assigns less than 27% for the Turkic speaking population of Iran.

(Ervand Abrahamian,Iran between two revolutions, Princeton University, 1982, pg 384)

 

In another source Ervand Abrahamian again clearly states(Ervand Abrahamian, Communism and Communalism in Iran: The Tudah and the Firqah-I Dimukrat, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Oct., 1970), pp. 291-316):

“The second largest group, Turkic, constitute another 26% and are subdivided nto the sedentary Azaris, the vast majority of Azarbayjan and a significant minority in the northern towns and tribal Turkmens, Qashqayis, Shahsavans, and Afshars, who form distinct entities in the north and southern province of Fars”.

 

Thus the only source for Asgharzadeh’s false claim is ethnologue.com

 

Unfortunately for Asgharzadeh, this author has already contacted ethnologue and they have admitted that their census is false.

 

After contacting Mr. Ray Gordon, the main editor of ethnologue about the wrong number of Azeris, ethnologue.com responded:

 

“Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not able to locate the original source from 1997.  In line with your calculations we agree that the figure is likely closest to 11,000,000. We will do further research and update our figures for the next edition

Yours, Ray Gordon Ethnologue, Research“

Indeed the inconsistent nature of ethnologue.com can be seen here from their 1996 to 2000 to 2006 editions.

 

http://www.christusrex.org/www3/ethno/Iran.html

In their 1996 edition we read

FARSI, WESTERN (PERSIAN, PARSI) [PES] 25,300,000 in Iran, 50.2% of the population (1993), including 800,000 Dari in Khorasan; 26,000 in Tajikistan (1979 census); 500,000 in Turkey; 8,000 in Turkmenistan (1993); 31,300 in Uzbekistan; 65,550 in Qatar; 48,000 in Bahrain; 185,700 in Iraq; 25,000 in Oman (1993); 900,000 in USA; 2,000 in Austria (1995); 15,000 in Canada; 90,000 in Germany; 10,000 in Greece; 102,000 in Saudi Arabia; 80,000 in United Arab Emirates (1986); 9,000 in Denmark (1993); 5,000 in Netherlands; 12,000 in United Kingdom; 26,523,000 in all countries. Central and south central Iran. Also in Israel. Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Western, Southwestern, Persian. Dialects: QAZVINI, MAHALLATI, HAMADANI, KASHANI, ISFAHANI, SEDEHI, KERMANI, ARAKI, SHIRAZI, JAHROMI, SHAHRUDI, KAZERUNI, MASHADI (MESHED), BASSERI. All schools use Farsi. The literary language is virtually identical in Iran and Afghanistan, with very minor lexical differences. Zargari may be a dialect used by goldsmiths (also see Balkan Romani in Iran). Dialect shading into Dari in Afghanistan and Tajiki in Tajikistan. National language. Typology: SOV. Mainly Shi'a Muslim. Braille code available. Bible 1838-1995. NT 1815-1979. Bible portions 1546-1965.

 

Ethnologue.com as shown by the above e-mail has no source for their data.  They have never been to Iran.  As a person that is writing a book, it is expected that Alireza Asgharzadeh will do some research instead of attributing false numbers to Ervand Abrahamian or Amir Hassanpour or making up false numbers based on unreliable websites!

 

Another Iranian author (by the pen name Mazdak Bamdadan) has also written to ethnologue.com seeking their explanation.  They were not also able to provide a source:

 

Dear Mazdak,
Sorry we cannot help you further with this question. This information was posted by a previous editor, and it probably came from his personal communication with someone else, and was therefore not documented.
Regards, Conrad Hurd

 

http://politic.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/politic/more/13089/

 

 

Indeed the last source used by ethnologue is from 1988.  Long before their 1996 edition!

 

Interestingly enough, ethnologue which is not even a 3rd rate source has been accused of political meddeling and manipulations.

 

The following information found on the internet about SIL (ethnologue is publication and endevour of SIL international) is noteworthy:

SIL has been accused of being involved in moving indigenous populations in South America from their native lands to make way for exploitation schemes of North American and European oil corporations. The most well known example is the case of the Huaorani people in Ecuador, which resulted in many deaths and the moving of the people into reservations controlled by the missionaries.

In 1975, thirty anthropologists signed "The Denouncement of Pátzcuaro", alleging that SIL was a "tool of imperialism", linked to the CIA and "divisions within the communities that constitutes a hindrance to their organization and the defence of their communal rights".  In 1979, SIL's agreement with the Mexican government was officially terminated, but it continued to be active in that country (Clarke, p. 182). The same happened in 1980 in Ecuador (Yashar 2005, p. 118), although a token presence remained. Remnants of SIL presence were protested in every subsequent Indian uprising. In the early 1990s, the newly-formed organisation of indigenous people of Ecuador CONAIE once more demanded the expulsion of SIL from the country.  At a conference of the Inter-American Indian Institute in Merida, Yucatan, in November 1980, delegates denounced the Summer Institute of Linguistics for using a scientific name to conceal its religious agenda and capitalist worldview that was alien to indigenous traditions.

John Perkins provides an example of criticism of SIL activity:

I had heard that (Jaime Roldos, President of Ecuador, 1979-81) accused The Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), an evangelical missionary group from the United States, of sinister collusion with the oil companies. I was familiar with SIL missionaries from my Peace Corps days. The organization had entered Ecuador, as it had in so many other countries, with the professed goal of studying, recording, and translating indigenous languages.  SIL had been working extensively with the Huaorani and Matsés tribes in the Amazon basin area, during the early years of oil exploration, when a disturbing pattern appeared to emerge. While it might have been a coincidence (and no link was ever proved), stories were told in many Amazonian communities that when seismologists reported to corporate headquarters that a certain region had characteristics indicating a high probability of oil beneath the surface, SIL went in and encouraged the indigenous people to move from that land, onto missionary reservations; there they would receive free food, shelter, clothes, medical treatment, and missionary-style education. The condition was that they had to deed their lands to the oil companies.

Rumors abounded that SIL missionaries used an assortment of underhanded techniques to persuade the tribes to abandon their homes and move to the missions. A frequently repeated story was that they had donated food heavily laced with laxatives - then offered medicines to cure the diarrhea epidemic. Throughout Huaorani territory, SIL airdropped false-bottomed food baskets containing tiny radio transmitters; The rumor was that receivers at highly sophisticated communications stations, manned by U.S. military personnel at the army base in Shell [a frontier outpost and military base hacked out of Ecuador’s Amazon jungle to service the oil company whose name it bears], tuned into these transmitters. Whenever a member of the tribe was bitten by a poisonous snake or became seriously ill, an SIL representative arrived with antivenom or the proper medicines - often in oil company helicopters."

SIL was allegedly financed initially by expatriate coffee processors in Guatemala, and later by the Rockefellers, Standard Oil, the timber company Weyerhauser, and USAID. [...] By the 1980s, SIL was expelled from Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, and Panama, and restricted in Colombia and Peru.  Today, according to SIL's annual report, funds are donations from individuals, churches, and other organizations, channelled to SIL by the Wycliffe Bible Translators.

 

 

It would not surprise the writer of this article that someone like Asgharzadeh probably provided ethnologue with false numbers which they can not locate and justify.  Also it should be noted that ethnologue has been

 

Indeed using the false number of ethnologue is one of the biggest tricks of pan-Turkists in the last 5 years or so:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/dorooghbaazibaamaarberaheni.htm

 

Ethnologue.com is not a professional site, it is a site run by missionaries who translate the bible in other languages.  It has never done a census in Iran and as admitted by their main editor, they have no idea where the number was taken from and believe that the population of Azerbaijanis in Iran is closer to 11 million.  

 

Indeed the numbers for ethnologue do not add and are short by millions:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/ethnologue_figuremissing.xls

 

Kurdish Iranian scholar, Ehsan Houshmand who did a total calculation based on the book Farhang Joqrafiye-e Iran under the Razm-Ara has provided interesting statistics from 1947.

http://www.magiran.com/magtoc.asp?mgID=1929&Number=43&Appendix=0

 

 

براساس سرشماری  کشور در سال 1335 که داده های آن در کتاب : فرهنگ جغرافیای ایران تحت نظارت سرتیبپ حسینعلی رزم آرا تدوین گشت، جمعیت ایران در سال 1335 حدود 14 ملیون نفر بود.  از این 14 ملیون تعداد جمعيت مناطق ترکی زبان 2451061 و تعداد مناطق دوزبانه فارسی-ترکی 877627 و تعداد مناطق سه زبان فارسی-ترکی-کردی 187464 نفر و تعداد مناطق ترکمنی 97491 بوده است. اگر دست بالا را بگیریم و تمام مناطق ترکمنی و فارسی-ترکی و فارسی-ترکی-کردی را با تمام مناطق ترکی زبان بنا بر اطلاعات این کتاب جمع بندی کنیم، حدود 23 تا 24%  جمعیت ايران ترکی زبان می شوند.

(بنگرید به مقاله: نگاهی دیگر به داده های زبانی و مذهبی ایران معاصر، احسان هوشمند، فصلنامه گفتگو، شماره 43، مهر 1384) http://www.magiran.com/magtoc.asp?mgID=1929&Number=43&Appendix=0

 

 

According to this book, Iran’s Turkic speaking population is between 16-23%.

 

Indeed in another actual statistics done in 1991, approximately all child bearers of the Persian month Mordad were asked about their mother tongue.  Iranic languages were 76% while Turkic languages were 21%.

 

 

در سال 1370 آمارگيري بسيار مستندي در مورد جمعيت ايران انجام گرفته است كه شرح آن را در مقالات زير مي توان يافت:

http://khabarnameh.gooya.com/society/archives/010245.php

http://asre-nou.net/1383/ordibehesht/20/m-mohsenian.html

 

"در مرداد 1370، هنگام صدور شناسنامه براي نوزادان، درباره زبان ٤٩ هزار و ٥٥٨ مادر در سطح كشور سوال مطرح شد كه نتيجه حاكي از سهم حضور ٥٣٬٨ درصدي زبان هاى غيرفارسي در ايران بود. بر اساس نمونه گيري مذكور، توزيع سهم هر يك از زبان ها (به درصد) به اين شرح بود: ٤٦٬٢ فارسي؛ ٢٠٬٦ تركي آذربايجاني؛ ١٠ كردي؛ ٨٬٩ لري؛ ٧٬٢ درصد گيلكي و شمالي؛ ٥٬٣ عربي ؛ ٢٬٧ بلوچي؛ ٠٬٦ تركمني؛ ٠٬١ ارمني؛ و ٠٬٢ ساير زبان ها ".  پس اگر گويش‌ها و زبان‌هاي هم خانواده با  فارسي را با آمار فوق جمع شود٬ زبان‌هايي كه "آريايي (ايراني)" خوانده مي شوند حدود ۷۶٪ ايران را  دربرمي گيرند. 

 

 

 

 

Another source for population statistics is the 1996 census taken throughout the country.

http://www.statoids.com/uir.html

 



Province

HASC

ISO

Dom

FIPS

Population

Area(km.²)

Area(mi.²)

Capital

Ardebil

IR.AR

03

Ar

IR32

1,168,011

17,881

6,904

Ardebil

Bushehr

IR.BS

06

Bu

IR22

743,675

23,168

8,945

Bushehr

Chahar Mahall and Bakhtiari

IR.CM

08

Cb

IR03

761,168

16,201

6,255

Shahr-e-Kord

East Azarbaijan

IR.EA

01

As

IR33

3,325,540

45,481

17,560

Tabriz

Esfahan

IR.ES

04

es

IR28

3,923,255

107,027

41,323

Esfahan

Fars

IR.FA

14

fr

IR07

3,817,036

121,825

47,037

Shiraz

Gilan

IR.GI

19

gl

IR08

2,241,896

13,952

5,387

Rasht

Golestan

IR.GO

27

gs

IR37

1,426,288

20,893

8,067

Gorgan

Hamadan

IR.HD

24

hm

IR09

1,677,957

19,547

7,547

Hamadan

Hormozgan

IR.HG

23

hr

IR11

1,062,155

71,193

27,488

Bandar-e-Abbas

Ilam

IR.IL

05

il

IR10

487,886

20,150

7,780

Ilam

Kerman

IR.KE

15

kr

IR29

2,004,328

181,714

70,160

Kerman

Kermanshah

IR.BK

17

ks

IR13

1,778,596

24,641

9,514

Kermanshah

Khuzestan

IR.KZ

10

kz

IR15

3,746,772

63,213

24,407

Ahvaz

Kohgiluyeh and Buyer Ahmad

IR.KB

18

kb

IR05

544,356

15,563

6,009

Yasuj

Kordestan

IR.KD

16

kd

IR16

1,346,383

28,817

11,126

Sanandaj

Lorestan

IR.LO

20

lr

IR23

1,584,434

28,392

10,962

Khorramabad

Markazi

IR.MK

22

mr

IR34

1,228,812

29,406

11,354

Arak

Mazandaran

IR.MN

21

mz

IR35

2,602,008

23,833

9,202

Sari

North Khorasan

IR.KS

31

kh

IR43

676,333

 

 

Bojnurd

Qazvin

IR.QZ

28

qz

IR38

968,257

15,491

5,981

Qazvin

Qom

IR.QM

26

qm

IR39

853,044

11,237

4,339

Qom

Razavi Khorasan

IR.KV

30

kh

IR42

4,991,818

247,622

95,607

Mashhad

Semnan

IR.SM

12

sm

IR25

501,447

96,816

37,381

Semnan

Sistan and Baluchestan

IR.SB

13

sb

IR04

1,722,579

178,431

68,893

Zahedan

South Khorasan

IR.KJ

29

kh

IR41

319,878

 

 

Birjand

Tehran

IR.TH

07

th

IR26

10,343,965

19,196

7,412

Tehran

West Azarbaijan

IR.WA

02

ag

IR01

2,496,320

37,463

14,465

Orumiyeh

Yazd

IR.YA

25

yz

IR40

810,401

128,811

49,734

Yazd

Zanjan

IR.ZA

11

zn

IR36

900,890

21,841

8,433

Zanjan

30 provinces

60,055,488

1,629,807

629,272

 

 

 

The provinces that are Azeri speaking majorities are East Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan.  The total population of these provinces relative to the country is 8.9%.  West Azerbaijan is about 75% Kurdish but if we count 50% Azeri, this will make 11% of the country.  There are Azerbaijanis in Gilan, Hamadan, Arak, Ghazvin but they are minority.  The maximum number of  Azerbaijanis in these provinces is no more than 1 million.  Indeed this author has seen how Pan-turkists from Tabriz have claimed Ghazvin and Hamadan to be Turkic speaking in online sites but were refuted by Hamadanis and Ghazvinis themselves.  But let us say for the sake of an over-estimate that there are 2 million Azerbaijanis in these provinces.  Also everyone knows that Tehran has a large Azerbaijani population, but most of these Azerbaijanis become integrated within Tehran and speak Persian.   Even so, we will estimate 3 million Azerbaijanis in Tehran.  Such an over conservative estimate leads to 19% Azerbaijani and nothing close to what Asgharzadeh is claiming.

 


The CIA fact book (24% Azeri)

Encyclopedia Britannica says:

About one-fifth of Iranians speak a variety of Turkic languages. The largest Turkic-speaking group is the Azerbaijani, a farming and herding people who inhabit two border provinces in the northwestern corner of Iran. Two other Turkic ethnic groups are the Qashqa'is in the Shiraz area to the north of the Persian Gulf and the Turkmen of Khorasan in the northeast.

 

Encyclopedia of Orient,

Persian
33,000,000 49%

 

Azeri
12,000,000 18%

Kurd
6,600,000 10%

Gilaki
3,700,000 6%

Lor
3,000,000 4%

Mazandarani
2,700,000 4%

Baluchi
1,600,000 2.4%

Arab
1,600,000 2.4%

Bakhtiari
1,300,000 1.9%

Turkmen
1,100,000 1.6%

Armenian
400,000 0.6%

 

 

Encyclopedia Encarta:

 

Ethnic Groups

Iran’s population is made up of numerous ethnic groups. Persians migrated to the region from Central Asia beginning in the 7th century bc and established the first Persian empire in 550 bc. They are the largest ethnic group, and include such groups as the Gilaki, who live in Gilān Province, and the Mazandarani, who live in Māzandarān Province. Accounting for about 60 percent of the total population, Persians live in cities throughout the country, as well as in the villages of central and eastern Iran. Two groups closely related to the Persians both ethnically and linguistically are the Kurds and the Lurs. The Kurds, who make up about 7 percent of the population, reside primarily in the Zagros Mountains near the borders with Iraq and Turkey. The Lurs account for 2 percent of the population; they inhabit the central Zagros region. Turkic tribes began migrating into northwestern Iran in the 11th century, gradually changing the ethnic composition of the region so that by the late 20th century East Azerbaijan Province was more than 90 percent Turkish. Since the early 1900s, Azeris (a Turkic group) have been migrating to most large cities in Iran, especially Tehrān. Azeris and other Turkic peoples together account for about 25 percent of Iran’s inhabitants. The remainder of the population comprises small communities of Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Baluchis, Georgians, Pashtuns, and others.

 

and even pan-Turkist sympathizer and Iran hater Brenda Shaffer all estimate the population of Azerbaijanis to be 16-25%.  Another Christian missionary site for example has:

 

Composition of Peoples

(OPW)
Peoples: Over 65 ethnic groups, many of which are small nomadic groups.
Indo-Iranian 75.6%. Persian 25,300,000; Kurds 4,670,000; Luri-Bakhtiari 4,280,000; Mazanderani 3,265,000; Gilaki 3,265,000; Dari Persian 1,600,000; Balochi 1,240,000; Tat 620,000; Pathan 113,000; Talysh 112,000.
Turkic 18.8%. Azerbaijani 8,130,000; Turkoman 905,000; Qashqai 860,000; Hazara 283,000; Teymur 170,000; Shahseven 130,000.
Arab 2.2%. Mainly in southwest.
Christian minorities 0.4%. Reduced from 1.5% in 1975 due to emigration. Armenian 170,000; Assyrian 40,000; Georgian 10,000.
Other 3%. Gypsy (Nawar and Ghorbati) 1,188,000; Brahui 149,000; Jews 68,000.
Refugees: Afghans 1.5 million, but decreasing; Iraqi Kurds 120,000 (at one stage in 1991 there were 1.2 million); Shi'a Arabs from Iraq.

 

 

Actual statistics done also clearly shows 15-20% .  Lord Cruzon, who in 1890 did an estimate of Iran’s ethnic population based on Russian sources estimated that 1 million out of the 6 million population of Iran is Tatar (Azeri, Turkomen..).  Recently, a good trick to defeat pan-Turkists claims has been used by some Iranians by proposing a logic in the form: “If 35 million Azeris live in Iran according to pan-Turkists, why should they separate and join a country that has only 8 million Azeris!. Where-as logicially it would be the other way around”.  Thus the pan-Turkist inflation of number of Azerbaijanis is not taken seriously by scholars or average Iranians. 

 

Unlike the Talysh in Azerbaijan whose numbers have officially not risen in 90 years, the Turkic speaking population of Iran since 115  years has not seen a decrease percentage wise relative to the total population.    As shown, the three provinces where Azerbaijani predominates is 8.9% of the population of this country.   The figure of close to 6% outside of these provinces as shown is reasonable.  Thus Alireza Asgharzadeh is way off the ball park and his only source turned out to be false and without any authority.  Also Alireza Asgharzadeh counts Qashqai and Azeris as the same ethnic group.  This is not even done in ethnologue.com which is his faviorate site.  At the same time, disregarding the invalid numbers from ethnologue.com (as admitted by the editor of ethnologue.comthat they can not locate their source and the figure of 11 million Azeris is more closer to the truth), the site clearly states that 10% of Iran is Kurdish :

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=IR

and Luri, Bakhtiari, Laki are more than 80-90% mutually comprehensible with Tehrani Persian (what ethnologue.com calls Western Farsi).  So the choice of counting Qashqai’s as Azeri by Asgharazadeh and at the same time reducing the number of what he calls “Persians” (probably speakers of Tehrani Persian) is simply sinister.

Gerhard Doerfer, a famous turkologist very liked also by pan-Turkists also states in his article (DIE TURKSPRACHEN IRANS) that about only one in six person in Iran speaks a Turkic language.  This statistics matches well with the provincial statistics.

 

Indeed it is well know that Azerbaijani’s have a larger share in the politics and governments and economy of Iran than their actual population.  In the Pahlavid regime, Rezashah’s mother was from caucus, his wife was a Qajar, Mohammad Reza Shah’s wife was Azerbaijani.  Reza Shah himself spoke Turkish very well:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ql0Oe42Nk8

 

He was half Persian (in actuality from Mazandaran) and half from caucus and as can be seen by the video above, spoke Turkish well.  Despite pan-Turkist claims, the bulk of the army of Reza Shah was Azerbaijani.

 

In the current regime (also called an apartheid regime by pan-turkist Asgharzadeh!), the supreme leader is Azerbaijani.  If there is any apartheid in Iran, it is against Sunnis, Zoroastrians, Christians and etc.  Let us not forget that it was mainly Azerbaijani’s who  officialized Persian in 1906!  It was Azerbaijani nationalists who reacted against pan-turkism and promoted centralism.  Iranians do not see such acts as centeralization or declaration of official language in 1906 as an ethno-centeric act to be blamed on one group or another.  But people who want to divide Iranians like pan-turkists demonize different groups like Persians, Kurds, Armenians and etc.   The fact that the country has one official language is nothing racist since many countries in the world which are multi-ethnic have one official language.

 

Of course pan-turkists like Alireza Asgharzadeh being extremely anti-Persian and anti-Iranian in general will like to reduce the Iranic speaking population of Iran in order to expand the influence of pan-Turkism.  But such disfigurement of actual population census is a useless effort.  Anyone that travels to Iran knows the reality and people like Nazmi Afshar can makeup fanciful bogus maps:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/moshtaaghaandighalim2.htm

 

but they can’t change the reality on the ground.

 

It is worth mentioning that there are more Kurdish speakers in Turkey than Azeri speakers in Iran and given the higher birth rate of Kurds in west Azerbaijan, pan-Turkists like Chehregani have officially complained to the Khatami administration and have written letters to Khatami asking him to reduce the birth rate of Kurds!!  This is the typical racist mindset of pan-turkists.  No other group in Iran has ever for example complained about the recent Azerification of Astara or large number of Azeris migrating to Tehran.  But pan-turkists have been crying (or howling) wolf with regards to the Kurdish population of West Azerbaijan.  Thus falsifying and attempting to change demographic realities is one of the strategies of pan-Turkist expansionism. 

 

It is unfortunate that the author of this article had to delve into demographics of iran since he believes anyone inside Iran is Iranian.  But Alireza Asgharzadeh and other pan-Turkist chavaunists have been using this falsified figure for a while in their writing and there was no choice but to expose this falsification.

 

Another Bogus figure

 

Asgharzadeh either quotes himself or another ethnic chavaunist by the name Azizi Bani Torof and says:

“during the 8 years of the Rafsanjani president' investment in Kerman province (the president's home province) was 300 times of that in East and West Azerbaijan, Zanjan and Ardebil—all with Azeri majorities.”

 

This is yet another lie of pan-turkists.  If that was the case, the earthquake in Bam Tehran which many pan-turkists were overjoyed with on the internet:

 

Would not have been such that all the homes of the people were destroyed.  There was absolutely not even one earthquake resistance structure in the whole city.  Note that Asgharzadeh does not provide any detail or source for such an absurd claim.  In recent years pan-turkists have made many absurd claims that have all turned false:

a)      UNESCO has declared Turkish to be the third most powerful language and Persian as the 34th dialect of Arabic!

b)      The Turkish works of Nizami Ganjavi were found in Egypt!

c)      Avesta is 70% Turkish.

d)     There are 40 million Azeris in Iran! (2006)

 

 

 

It should be noted that given the fact that Rafsanjani is from Kerman, he might have invested in Kerman as any other president from any other province does the same.  But there are many poor Persian speaking provinces like Southern Khorasan, Kerman, Bushehr, Fars, Sistan..etc. whose economic situation is much worst than Azeri provinces.  Unfortunately, in order to support his thesis, Alireza Asgharzadeh profusely uses false statistics like that of ethnologue to support his thesis.   Indeed if we are to take government statistics (there are no other statistics and no one takes madeup pan-turkist statistics seriously), unemployement in Kerman is much higher than any of those provinces.

 

http://www.iribnews.ir/Default.aspx?Page=MainContent&news_num=99554

 

Mamalek Mahrooseyeh Iran does not mean what Alireza Asgharzadeh claims

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh claims:

 

The Qajar era of "Mamalek-e Mahruseh-ye Iran" (independent kingdoms of Iran) was a recognized multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual society governed through a loose form of federalism where all ethnic groups were free to use, study, and develop their languages, literatures, cultures, traditions, and identities … until the reign of Reza Shah it was mainly referred to as Protected Countries/kingdoms of Iran, signifying thus the autonomous status of various regions (pg 10,14).

 

This is obviously a falsification of history.  The Qajars massacred many different people in Iran but more importantly illiteracy was 99% during the Qajar era.  The Qajars not only took out the eyeballs of inhabitants of Kerman from their eye sockets, but they were so cruel in Baluchistan that today the term Shi’ite and Qajar are equivalent in those lands and are used as insult.  The only schools at the time were the traditional religious Maktab schools where Arabic and Persian were thought at an early age. 

 

But the abuse is of the term “Mamalek-e Mahruseh-ye Iran” and mistranslation of this term is the subject of this section.  According to the Dehkhoda dictionary: “Mamalek-e- Mahruseh-ye Iran” is equivalent to all the Ayalat o Velayat (provinces and districts) of Iran.  Thus the term can easily mean “protected districts and provinces of Iran”.  Another meaning for Mamalek is given as Sarzamin (land) in the Dehkhoda dictionary.  “Protected lands of Iran” is another reasonable definition in English.

 

The pan-turkists would like to claim that Azerbaijan itself was a country and that is why the term Mamalek is used.

 

But this notion is clearly false.  The invalidity of this notion has been discussed in this article. 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Iran/iran_ai/iran_ai1.htm

 

Indeed the term “Mamalek-e Azerbaijan” occurs frequently in Qajar and Afsharid literature.  For example in the book Alem Araayeh Naderi written during the era of Nader shah:

 

 

 

به گفتة محمدکاظم وزیر مروی در عالم آرای نادری، نادرشاه برادرش ابراهيم‏خان ظهيرالدوله را به عنوان فرمانده کل قوای آذربایجان برگزيده و به تمام حکمرانان «از مرز قافلانکوه تا ارپه چای و حدود داغستان و گرجستان» دستور داد از او اطاعت کنند. نادر به ابراهیم‏خان دستور داد تا با «سپاه کینه خیز کل ممالک آذربایجان عازم قره‏باغ شود».

 

 

This translates to: “The whole heartened army of the Mamalek-e-Azerbaijan is to move into Karabagh”.  Note if take Mamalek-e Azerbaijan, then the pan-Turkist claim that Azerbaijan was one country is totally invalid and we would have to translate this term into “Countries of Azerbaijan”.

 

Another example:

 

زمین لرزه های سال 1313 هجری قمری برابر بوده با روز چهارم و ششم ژانویه سال 1896 میلادی

در روزنامه ناصری تبریز شرح این زمین لرزه را چنین آورده است :

شب جمعه هفدهم شهر رجب المرجب در شهر دارالسلطنه زلزله خفیفی بوقوع پیوست که چندان شدت نداشت و شب یکشنبه نوزدهم شهر مزبور در ساعت سه این داهیه دهشت انگیز مجددا بطور شدت واقع شد ولی شکر خدا را موجب خرابی و خسارت نشد . لیکن بموجب خبری که از بلاد آذربایجان رسیده این بلیه غیبی را در ممالک آذربایجان عمومیتی بوده، چنانچه بموجب تلگرافی که از اردبیل مخابره شده ، در آنجا نیز شب هفدهم بطور خفیف و شب نوزدهم زلزله سختی شده و قلعه حکومتی را صدمه زده است و همچنین بعضی ابنیه قدیمیه شهر را نیز خراب کرده است.

 

The above describes the earthquake of Tabriz in 1896.  The terms used are Balad-e-Azerbaijan and Mamalek-e-Azerbaijan.  Thus if we are to take Asgharzadehs claim seriously, then Azerbaijan had several countries and Iran had several countries within it!  Where-as the term Mamalek in its simplest form simply means land and this definition is in Dehkhoda’s dictionary. 

 

 

Just another instance from Astarabadi during the time of Nader Shah:

به نوشته استرآبادی، نادر: «سپهسالاری و اختیار کل ممالک آذربایجان را به ظهیرالدوله ابراهیم خان برادر والاگهر خود عنایت و مقرر داشتند"

Mamalek-e- Fars, Mamalek-e-Khorasan and etc.. are also used in this era and none of them mean lands with defined ethnic boundaries who are self autonomous countries!

 

 

 

در سالگرد درگیریهای ارامنه قره باغ با آذریهای جمهوری آذربایجان ، عده ای ناشناس با اتوبوس به محل خلیفه گری ارامنه در تبریز آورده شدند و به این محل مذهبی تعرض کردند. سایتهای جدایی طالبان آذربایجانی نما نسبت به بازداشت متعرضین شدیدا اعتراض نموده اند.
اگرفرض کنیم که دولت ارمنستان واقعا علیه آذریها جنایت روا داشته است ؛ جای این پرسش باقی است که یک اقلیت مذهبی تابع کشور ایران [ارامنه] چرا باید تاوان اعمال یک دولت [دولت ارمنستان] را بپردازند؟ آیا هیچگاه در تاریخ معاصر ایران ، حتی در هنگامه جنگ و انقلاب ، مردم ایران به بهانه اعمال دولت اسرائیل ، اقلیت کلیمی ایرانی را مورد تعرض قرار دادند یا خیر؟

جریانی که در ظاهر خود را حامی اقلیت میشناساند (قوم پرستی ترک ) چطور خود با خشونت غیرقابل توجیه با یک اقلیت دینی روبرو میشود؟

آیا امثال این وقایع صحت گفته های ما را ثابت نمیکند که همزیستی و همدلی اقوام ، گروه های مختلف دینی ، سیاسی و طبقاتی تنها در سایه باوربه ملیت ایرانی قابل تحقق است؟

 

 

Babak Khorramdin, an Iranian who fought against the Caliphs and their Turkish Soldiers

In the last 5 years or so, pan-turkists have all the sudden found Baba Khorramdin in Iranian history and have attempted to appropriate him into Turkic history.  They claim that hundreds of thousands (and some sites millions) of people show up every year in the Babak ceremony.  The fact of the matter is that the area is very narrow and can not hold million or even one hundred thousand people.  We have already seen exaggeration of demographic figures, other exaggerations by pan-turkists are normal.  Referring to the pan-Turkist ceremony, Asgharzadeh writes:


“A glaring manifestation of this resurgent movement can be witnessed in powerful displays of strength, mobilization, and determination that have been taking place for the past decade in commemoration of die birth­day of ancient Azeri hero, Babak Khorramdin.”(pg 19)

 

 

The fact of the matter is that Babak was not a Turkic hero.  He was Persian.  This has been clearly explained in the article below:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/babak_khorramdin/babakpasokhbehanirani.htm

 

 

Indeed it is worth reviewing some primary and secondary sources.

 

Oxford scholar and Professor M. Whittow states:

 

''Azerbaijan was the scene of frequent anti-caliphal and anti-Arab revolts during the eighth and ninth centuries, and Byzantine sources talk of Persian warriors seeking refuge in the 830s from the caliph's armies by taking service under the Byzantine emperor Theophilos. [...] Azerbaijan had a Persian population and was a traditional centre of the Zoroastrian religion. [...] The Khurramites were a [...] Persian sect, influenced by Shiite doctrines, but with their roots in a pre-Islamic Persian religious movement.''(The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025"'', Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 195, 203, 215)

 

Armenian historian  Vardan Arewelts’i, ca. 1198-1271 notes:

 

In these days, a man of the PERSIAN race, named Bab, who had went from Baltat killed many of the race of Ismayil(what Armenians called Arabs) by sword and took many slaves and thought himself to be immortal.  ..Ma'mun for 7 years was battling in the Greek territorties and ..came back to mesopotamia.  (La domination arabe en Armènie, extrait de l’ histoire universelle de Vardan, traduit de l’armènian et annotè , J. Muyldermans, Louvain et Paris, 1927, pg 119: ''En ces jours-lá, un homme de la race PERSE, nomm é Bab, sortant de Baltat, faiser passer par le fil de l’épée beaucoup de la race d’Ismayēl tandis qu’il..''.  Actual Armenian Grabar:

Havoursn haynosig ayr mi hazkes Barsitz Pap anoun yelyal i Baghdada, arganer zpazoums i sour suseri hazken Ismayeli, zpazoums kerelov. yev anser zinkn anmah. yev i mium nvaki sadager yeresoun hazar i baderazmeln youroum ent Ismayeli)

 

Ibn Hazm (994-1064), the Arab historian  mentions the different Iranian revolts against the Caliphate in his book Al-fasl fil al-Milal wal-Nihal.  He writes: ''The Persians had the great land expanse and were greater than all other people.. Among their leaders were Sanbadh, Muqanna', Ostadsis and Babak and others.”

See here for the actual Arabic quote:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/babak_khorramdin/babakpasokhbehanirani.htm

 

More interestingly, the people who fought against Babak were mainly Turks themselves.  Most of the soldiers of the caliphates were recruited from Turkish mercernaries and slaves from Central Asia and Khazaria.  The number of Turkic soldiers in the caliphs service is estimated to be at least 70,000 for that time.  Amongst these Turkish soldiers were Bugha, Ashnas, Aytakh and according to some sources even Afshin.  Babak Khorramdin in one of his letters writes to emperor Theophilus:

 

One of his comments to the Byzantine emperor Theophilus (r. 829-42) reads:

“Mo’atem has no one else left, so he sent his tailor and his Turkish cook to fight me”

(Encyclopedia Iranica, "Babak Khorrami" by G.H. Yusofi)

 

Indeed to delve into half Turkish caliphs like Mot’asem and their use of Turkish mercenaries in Iran and caucasia is outside of the scope of this article.  For example one Armenian author writes:

 

“The caliph sent a new army, under the command of Bugha, a barbarous general, who ravaged the country, massacred tens of thousands of people, and deported most of the Armenian nobles to Samarra.”

(A. J. (Agop Jack) Hacikyan, Nourhan Ouzounian, Gabriel Basmajian, Edward S. Franchuk, The Heritage of Armenian Literature, Wayne State University Press, 2002. pg 38)

 

So Babak Khorramdin being used as an icon of pan-Turkism is similar historical distortion to the use of Medes as an icon for pan-Turkism.  These sort of distortions simply show that ethnic fascism will distort the history of any historical figure in order to achieve its aim.

 

The slogans in the Babak Khorramdin castle and foreign flags carried there in leaves no doubt that such an event had foreign guidance.  Why else would there be flags raised that are not the flags of Iran?  Or why else would there be slogans against Persians, Armenians, Kurds, Russians? 

 

 

Foreign Interference

 

Despite the claim of Alireza Asgharzadeh that there is no foreign influence in inciting ethnic groups towards ethnic hatred in Iran, examples of foreign interference are abundant.

 

British meddling in Khuzestan

Elton L. Daniel comments on the British support of Shaykh Khazal( Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, Greenwood Press, 2000, pg 133):

“The British certainly regarded him as a key protege in the web of petty emirates they had created around their interests in the Persian Gulf . Khazal had refused to pay taxes, written the Majles to complain that Reza Khan was a menace to the shah, and plotted to have Khuzistan incorporated as part of the British mandate in Iraq ; Britain warned Reza Khan against intervening and sent gunships to the area. Unintimidated, Reza Khan called the bluff and marched on Mohammareh in person. In the end, the British were more concerned about damage to their oil in¬stallations than Sheikh Khazal's autonomy and did nothing to defend him. He quickly surrendered and was later arrested and sent into a com¬fortable exile in Tehran . Probably no other event so enhanced Reza Khan's reputation as his willingness to confront the British lion in one of its chief lairs.”

 

Sir Dennis Wright, an honorary fellow of St. Edmund Hall and St. Antony’s college and the British ambassador to Iran from 1963-1971 describes the British meddling in Iranian affairs through the support of Shaykh khazal(Sir Denis Wright, The English Amongst the Persians: Imperial Lives in Nineteenth-Century Iran, I.B.Tauris, 2001):

“The Persian Government were less impressed. They had long been distrustful of the Shaikh's close relations with the British, whose ships, as they steamed up the Shatt al-Arab past his palace, had for years fired a salute in memory of some helpful action by his father. Shaikh Khazal, who had no love for the Persian authorities, had deliberately neglected seeking the permission of the Shah, whose subject he was, before accepting his British decoration. Not surprisingly the Tehran press were critical of his behavior while the Persian Govern¬ment correctly suspected that, in addition to the K.C.I.E., he had reached some understanding with the British for the protection of his semi-independent position. When in December 1910, three months after the investiture, the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the British Minister in Tehran whether it was true that the Shaikh enjoyed the British Government's protection, he was told that the Shaikh was not a British Protected Person but that the British had special relations with him and in the event of any encroachment on his rights they would give him their support. The Persian Government were at the time far too weak to react strongly to this admission of British support for one of their more independent and powerful tribal chiefs. For their part the British had given their assurances reluctantly to an importunate Shaikh in the knowledge that without his goodwill Britain 's political and commercial interests in southern Persia were at risk, since the authority of the Tehran Government in those parts was totally ineffective. In 1919, at the end of World War I, the British Government presented the Shaikh with a river steamer for his services during the war: they also gave him 3,000 rifles and ammunition to enable him to protect the installations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and cover die withdrawal of British forces from Khuzistan. But neither these nor the 1910 promise, albeit carefully qualified of support ‘in the event of any encroachment by the Persian Government your jurisdiction and recognised rights, or on your property in Persia' were of any avail against the determined centralising policy of Reza Shah, in whose hands Shaikh Khazal died a virtual prisoner in 1936.”

Ottomon interference and pan-Turkism

 

As already noted by Professor. Atabaki(Touraj Atabaki, “Recasting Oneself, Rejecting the Other: Pan-Turkism and Iranian Nationalism” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)”: In the middle of April 1918, the Ottoman army invaded Azerbaijan for the second time. Yusuf Zia, a local coordinator of the activities of the Teshkilat-i Mahsusa (Special Organization) 30 in the region, was appointed political adviser to the Ottoman contingent in Iran. Soon, the Teshkilaˆt-i Mahsusa introduced a small pan-Turkist party in Tabriz(31), together with the publication of an Azerbaijani-language newspaper called Azarabadegan, which was the Ottomans’ main instrument for propagating pan-Turkism throughout the province. The editorship of the newspaper was offered to Taqi Rafat, a local Azerbaijani who later became known for his vanguard role in effecting innovations in Persian literature.   Contrary to their expectations, however, the Ottomans did not achieve impressive success in Azerbaijan. Although the province remained under quasi-occupation by Ottoman troops for months, attempting to win endorsement for pan-Turkism ended in failure.

…

In the recently born state of Turkey, the Turk Ocagi activists strove to find a new home under the self-restrained Kemalist regime. In 1923, the Turkish magazine Yeni Mecmu’a (the New Journal) reported on a conference about Azerbaijan, held by Turk Ocagi in Istanbul. During the conference, Roshani Barkin, an ex-member of Teshkilat-I Mahsusa and an eminent pan-Turkist, condemned the Iranian government for its oppressive and tyrannical policies towards the Azerbaijanis living in Iran.  He called on all Azerbaijanis in Iran to unite with the new-born Republic of Turkey.”

 

USSR interference and Pishevari:

 

The Ferqeh democrat will be dealt with in another chapter.  But it is worth a mention here.

 

For example, in a cable sent on July 6th 1945 by the ''Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union'', the Secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Azerbaijan was instructed as such:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F21E-96B6-175C-91FB9BFAF40CE44F&sort=Collection&item=1945-46%20Iranian%20Crisis

 



TOP SECRET

To Cde. Bagirov

Measures to Organize a Separatist Movement in Southern Azerbaijan and Other Provinces in Northern Iran

1. Consider it advisable to begin preparatory work to form a national autonomous Azerbaijan district [oblast’] with broad powers within the Iranian state.
At the same time develop a separatist movement in the provinces of Gilyan, Mazandaran, Gorgan, and Khorasan.

2. Establish a democratic party in Southern Azerbaijan under the name “Azerbaijan Democratic Party” with the objective of guiding the separatist movement. The creation of the Democratic Party in Southern Azerbaijan is to be done by a corresponding reorganization of the Azerbaijani branch of the People’s Party of Iran and drawing into it supporters of the separatist movement from all strata of the population.

3. Conduct suitable work among the Kurds of northern Iran to draw them into the separatist movement to form a national autonomous Kurdish district.

4. Establish in Tabriz a group of responsible workers to guide the separatist movement, charging them with coordinating [kontaktirovat’] their work with the USSR General Consulate in Tabriz.
Overall supervision of this group is entrusted to Bagirov and Yakubov.

5. Entrust the Azerbaijan CP(b) CC (Bagirov and Ibragimov) with developing preparatory work to hold elections in Southern Azerbaijan to the 15th Convocation of the Iranian Majlis, ensuring the election of deputies who are supporters of the separatist movement on the basis of the following slogans:

a) Allotment of land to the peasants from state and large landowning holdings and awarding long-term monetary credit to the peasants;

b) Elimination of unemployment by the restoration and expansion of work at enterprises and also by developing road construction and other public works;

c) Improvement of the organization of public amenities of cities and the public water supply;

d) Improvement in public health;

e) Use of no less than 50% of state taxes for local needs;

f) Equal rights for national minorities and tribes: opening schools and publication of newspapers and books in the Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Armenian, and Assyrian languages; court proceedings and official communications in local institutions in their native language; creating a provincial administration, including the gendarmerie and police, from local national elements; formation of regional, district, and city enjumens [and] local self-governing bodies.

g) Radical improvement in Soviet-Iranian relations.

 

 

According to Taduesz Swietochowski: ''As it turned out, the Soviets had to recognize that their ideas on Iran were premature. The issue of Iranian Azerbaijan became one of the opening skirmishes of the Cold War, and, largely under the Western powers' pressure, Soviet forces withdrew in 1946. The autonomous republic collapsed soon afterward, and the members of the Democratic Party took  refuge in the Soviet Union, fleeing Iranian revenge..  In Tabriz, the crowds that had just recently applauded the autonomous republic were now greeting the returning Iranian troops, and Azerbaijani students publicly burned their native-language textbooks. The mass of the population was obviously not ready even for a regional self-government so long as it smacked of separatism.''(Swietochowski, Tadeusz 1989. "Islam and the Growth of National Identity in Soviet Azerbaijan", Kappeler, Andreas, Gerhard Simon, Georg Brunner eds. Muslim Communities Reemerge: Historical Perspective on Nationality, Politics, and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 46-60.)

 

Saddam Hussein and Khuzestan

 

Professor Efraim Kash states:”Nor did Saddam’s territorial go beyond the Shatt al-Aran and a small portion of the southern region of Khuzestan, where he hoped, the substantial Arab minority would rise against their Iranian “Oppressors”.  This did not happen.  The underground Arab organization in Khuzestan proved to be a far cry from the mass movement anticipated by the Iraqis, and Arab masses remained conspicuously indifferent to their would-be liberators”(Efraim Karsh, The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988, Osprey Publishing, 2002, pg 27.)

 

According to Amanda Roraback(Amanda Roraback, Iran In A Nutshell, Enisen Publishing, pg 30):

“The Islamic Revolution posed a great threat to the regime of Saddam Hussein who had become president in July 1979. Its religious overtones threatened Hussein's secular government and he feared that the revolutionary spirit would provoke ethnic Kurds in the north and Iraq 's majority Shi'ite population in the south to rise up against his Sunni Baathist regime. To thwart such an uprising, Hussein exiled thousands of Iraqi Shi'iles to Iran and quickly and brutally suppressed any dissension among the Kurds.  At the same time. Hussein saw an opportunity to lake advantage of Iran 's instability during its political transition and the weakness of its military (which had been decimated through regular purges of military officers once loyal to the former regime) in order to seize Iran 's oil-rich, primarily Arab-populated Khuzestan province. Hussein had wrongly expected the Iranian Arabs to join the Arab Iraqi forces and win a quick victory for Iraq.”

 

Separatist Arab groups condemened Iran and cried when Saddam was executed by the will of the Iraqi people.  After the demise of Saddam and given the fact that Kurds and Shi’ites are strong in modern Iraq, pan-Arabism has seen less support in Iran although other backers might come by.  It should be noted that Arabic is thought as a mandatory subject (both classical and modern) to all Iranian pupils but pan-Turkists never complain about this mandatory subject and their whole aim is the Persian language which was made official through the democtratic process of 1906.

 

The republic of Azerbaijan

 

According to the Pro-Azerbaijani republic source, Svante Cornell mentions:

 

As the leader of Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF), the historian Abulfazl Elchibey, came to power in June 1992, Azerbaijan turned increasingly towards Turkey. Indeed, Elchibey was decidedly Pro-Turkish, secularly oriented, pan-Azeri and vehemently anti-Iranian. This meant that Tehran had exactly the kind of government in Baku that it did not wish to have. President Elchibey did not show any diplomatic tact either. On several occasions, he blasted Iran as a doomed state and predicted that within five years, Azerbaijan would be reunited. It remains clear that during the Elchibey's rule, Iran drifted towards close contacts with Armenia.

(Svante Cornell, "Small nations and great powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus", Richmond : Curzon Press, 2001)

 

The West

 

Brenda Shaffer has already been mentioned.  It is worth mentioning the clandestine Israeli backed radio “voice of South Azerbaijan” which has been exposed in this article:

 

http://www.qsl.net/yb0rmi/vosa.htm

 

The article is quoted in this response since it is a clear example of foreign interference to agitate ethnic discord in Iran.

 

http://www.qsl.net/yb0rmi/cri.jpg

Investigative Report:

Voice of Southern Azerbaijan

By Nick Grace C., March, 1998

Revised April, 1998

 

http://www.qsl.net/yb0rmi/fnisa.jpg

 
The Voice of Southern Azerbaijan (VOSA), active since 1996 with broadcasts against Iran from an undisclosed transmitting location, is quickly becoming an intriguing story.  A story that not only includes oil and politics, but also espionage, the Mossad, and players from the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980's.
 
When it was first heard, radio monitors assumed that it was broadcasting from Turkmenistan, however, an Israeli connection slowly came to light as more people tuned in.  According to monitor Nikolai Pashkevich in Russia, "when I tuned in my receiver to this channel I found an open carrier with 'Reshet Bet'... on the background and then VOSA signing on" (CDX 180). Reshet Bet  is, of course, a news service of Israel Radio.  The German Telecommunications department has also pinpointed VOSA's location to be somewhere around Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (BCDX 351.)  Cumbre DX founder Hans Johnson notes in Cumbre 179 that the station "switches to DST the same time that Israel does," marking Israel as the primary target (CDX 179.)
 

http://www.qsl.net/yb0rmi/rashet.jpg

Rashet Bet office (courtesy of Rashet Bet)

 
Further evidence surfaced in April 1998 when a "mixing product" was observed between VOSA programs and KOL Israel transmissions.  A "mixing product" is an extraneous signal that is produced when two transmissions are made in close physical proximity.  This "product" has been heard on 21425 kHz.  Wolfgang Bueschel states in DX Window 111 that at the same time VOSA is on the air between 1530 and 1630 UTC, KOL Israel transmits on 17535, 15650, and 11605 kHz.  When the first KOL frequency is multiplied twice and then subtracted by the "product" frequency, VOSA frequency mathmetically appears: 13645 kHz. (DXW 111)  Of all the evidence, this is clearly the most compelling.
 
If this is the case, then VOSA is clearly supervised and arranged by Israel's intelligence agency: the Mossad.  Both Kai Ludwig and this author made the connection after reports began to surface in late February 1998.  But the story becomes more complicated and interesting.
 
According to Wolfgang Bueschel in BCDX 351, "Mr. Vafa Culuzadeh, adviser of former Azerbaijan President Ebulfez Elicibey, told the Italian press agency IPS in October 1992 from Baku, that the Israelian secret service specialist David Kimche and... Richard Secord, who was involved in the Iran-Contra-Affair, visited Azerbaijan, (and) presented a delegation of more Israelian secret service personnel. Mr. Culuzadeh took part on a return visit to Israel, (and) lead a delegation of Azerbaijan/Uzbek/Kazakh secret services" (BCDX 351.)
 
Vafa Culuzadeh, despite the quote above, is an adviser to the current Azeri president (Heydar Aliyev), and has been an important negotiator between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as between Armenia and secessionists from Nagorno-Karabakh.
 
David Kimche is a 30-year veteran of the Mossad and was an important force behind the Reagan administration's arms-for hostages swap with Iran and its secret aid to the Nicaraguan rebels (coined Iran-Contra.)  In fact, it was Kimche who helped to organize the Contras, who supplied them with Israeli military advisers, who sold the US government Palestinian weapons Israel had seized in 1982, and who claimed he could get access to the hostage-takers in Lebanon.  He was not indicted because of diplomatic scuffling between Israel and the United States.  Kimche was the former Director General of the Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and currently heads the Israel Council on Foreign Relations.  He is also on the Board of Directors for Israel's International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT)).

 
Retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord was also a key player during the Iran-Contra scandal.  He earned his wings while flying for "Air America," the CIA covert paramilitary operation in Laos that supplied local Hmong tribes with arms and training to counter the Communist Laotian regime.  He wrote a memoir, "Honored and Betrayed: Irangate, Covert Affairs, and the Secret War in Laos," in 1992 to detail his involvement with the CIA and service to the American government.  He was one of the Iran-Contra players who set up the "Enterprise," the company outside of the CIA that earned money and lined the pockets for those involved.
 
The involvement, if any, of the above three individuals with VOSA is unknown at the present time.  It is interesting to note, however, that the address VOSA announces in Austria is addresses as "Vosa, Ltd."  Both Secord and Kimche made money off of Iran-Contra arms sales.  Could the organizers of VOSA also be making money?
 

Front for the National Independence of South Azerbaijan

 
Azeris are the second largest ethnic group within Iran, therefore, any attempt to organize them against the Iranian government would be perilous for the country.  (Ramezanzadeh.)  In fact, Human Rights Watch reports that between 15 and 20 million Azeris reside in Iran, and that they "inhabit a strategically important, prosperous area in northwest Iran, relatively close to Tehran" (HRW.)  In 1996, the nightmare for Iran started to become a reality when four Southern Azerbaijani (Iranian) political parties merged under the umbrella of the Front for the National Independence of South Azerbaijan (FNISA.)  The government in Tehran, however, claims that Azerbaijan should be incorporated into Iranian territory since it was once part of ancient Persia.  "The Azarbaijan Republic once was ours.  So, if there is any talk of unification of the two Azarbaijans, it is they who should come back to Iran .... Some agents of world arrogance are trying to damage our national unity by spreading secessionist sentiments in our region," Ayatollah Mohsen Shabestary stated during Friday prayer in Tabriz, May 1996 (ibid.)
 
Iranian government officials often alledge Turkish involvement with FNISA - not Israeli nor the Mossad.  However, a recent scandal developed between Israel and Switzerland after Mossad officials were caught engaging in espionage against Iranians (Schlein.)
 
Radio VOSA announces two telephone numbers at the beginning of their broadcasts, reportedly at 1633 GMT.  Wolfgang Bueschel writes that he has called one of the numbers and reached an answering machine in the Azeri language (BCDX 351.)  According to the BBCM, representatives for the station say that its programs are about "the daily life of the people of Southern Azerbaijan under Iranian oppression, the struggles of our brothers who live in Northern Azerbaijan (Republic of Azerbaijan), their long standing war with the Armenian enemy who receives help from Iran, programmes about our Azeri inheritance, our great history and civilization..." (ibid.)
 
The address VOSA announces is: Vosa Ltd., Postfach 108, A-1193 Vienna, Austria, and the telephone number is: +31 307-192189.
 
Listeners may try to hear broadcasts of VOSA during the following time frames:

 

Time

Frequency

0615-0715

11934.9 kHz

1630-1730

7095 kHz

 

This article will be updated as more developments unfold.

Bibliography

 
"David Kimche."  ICT Board of Directors.
"Iran: Religious and Ethnic Minorities."  Human Rights Watch / Middle East.  September 1997.
"Two Azerbaijan (North and South): A Common Past and a Common Future."  Qurtulus Homepage.
BCDX 351, March 1, 1998.
Cumbre DX 180, March 5, 1998.
DX Window 111, April 12, 1998.
Ramezanzadeh, Abdollah.  "Iran's Role as Mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis."  Contested Borders, Chapter VII.
Schlein, Lisa.  "Israeli Spies."  VOA News.  February 26, 1998.

 

 

The Iranian government has accused western governments specially the USA of attempting to de-destabilize Iran through the formation of ethnic tensions. (Iran slams US comments on detainees , Tue, 05 Jun 2007 , Press TV (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=12131&sectionid=351020101).  Western newspapers and Western editors as well as reports that quote former CIA operative have confirmed this accusation.  Seymour Hersh brought widespread attention to claims of covert operations in Iran when he reported in an April 2006 New Yorker article that US troops in Iran were recruiting local ethnic populations, including the Azeris, to encourage local tensions that could undermine the regime.  According to Seymour Hersh: “As of early winter, I was told by the government consultant with close ties to civilians in the Pentagon, the units were also working with minority groups in Iran, including the Azeris, in the north, the Baluchis, in the southeast, and the Kurds, in the northeast..” (Seymour M. Hersh, the Iran Plam, the New York , April 2006).  Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter has recently suggested that the US military is setting up the infrastructure for an enormous military presence in Azerbaijan that will be utilised for a land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran .   He also believes CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Forces are training Azerbaijani forces into special force units capable of operating within Iran  in order to mobilize the large Azeri ethnic minority within Iran .(Simon Whelan, Bush courts Azerbaijani President as Part of Build-Up against Iran , Global Research, May 9, 2006).

 

In September 7, 2004, in a veiled threat to Iran , Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage said: “Iran is much more difficult. There are some things internal to Iran that one has to look at. Demographics are one. The Persians are almost a minority in their own country now -- they're like 52% or something. There are many more Azeris in Tabriz than there are in Azerbaijan , just for the record. So that has an effect over time of changing things.” ( Iran : A Tougher Nut than North Korea September 7, 2004, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf2004097_2792_db052.htm)

 

 

Pentagon officials have also met with Azerbaijani Separatist Chehregani. ( http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030603-103140-3533r.htm)

 

 

 

 

According to James Woolsey, former director of CIA, in Iran only a bare majority are Persian.  Furthermore, James Woosely suggests that Washington should also need to pay attention to its geographic and ethnic fissures - for example, a large share of Iran's oil is located in the restive Arab-populated regions in Iran's south.( David Eshel, Ethnic Opposition on the rise in Iran, http://www.defenseupdate.com/newscast/0307/analysis/analysis-070307.htm) Iason Athanasiadis, in his article stirring the ethnic potâ quotes a CIA operative: “I continuously scripted possible covert action mischief in my mind. Iranian Azerbaijan was rich in possibilities. Accessible through Turkey and ex-Soviet Azerbaijan , eyed already by nationalists in Baku , more Westward-looking than most of Iran , and economically going nowhere, Iran 's richest agricultural province was an ideal covert action theater”.  Iason Athanasiadis continues:”In his book Know Thine Enemy , Gerecht penetrates Iran with the help of an Azeri-Iranian accomplice as he mulls over ways to destabilize its clerical regime. From cultivating high-ranking Azeris to inciting separatist Kurds to fostering divisive clerical rivalry between the holy Shi'ite cities of Najaf in Iraq and Qom in Iran , Gerecht constantly mentally prods methods of destabilizing the Islamic republic.”( Iason Athanasiadis, Stirring the ethnic pot, Asian Times, April 29, 2005 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD29Ak01.html)  The Newspaper Sunday Telegraph of the UK , in an article title US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran written in 25/02/2007 has said:

“In a move that reflects Washington's growing concern with the failure of diplomatic initiatives, CIA officials are understood to be helping opposition militias among the numerous ethnic minority groups clustered in Iran's border regions.  The operations are controversial because they involve dealing with movements that resort to terrorist methods in pursuit of their grievances against the Iranian regime… Funding for their separatist causes comes directly from the CIA's classified budget but is now "no great secret", according to one former high-ranking CIA official in Washington who spoke anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph.  His claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: "The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran 's ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”(William Lowther in Washington DC and Colin Freeman, Sunday Telegraph, 25/02/2007,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml)

 

 

In a very recent article:

Peter Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer explicity states:” Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran” and “Giraldi talked of US's support for Jundullah which he described as a Sunni Baluchi separatist group in eastern Iran that has launched deadly terrorist attacks inside Iran. He also spoke of US support for separatists amongst the Arab minority which is closer to the border with Iraq.”

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6434

 

Cartoon issue

Alireza Asgharzadeh in the end of Chapter I refers to the recent cartoon controversy.

 

An eyewitness Iranian from Maragheh has responded perfectly to this issue and has shown the clear foreign influence.  What is important is that this year, the number of people that showed in the anniverasy of the event was miniscule.  Indeed some people the year before might have thought that Iran newspaper insulted the Azeris of Iran.  But this year , it was not so.  Also some of the slogans of last year including “Fars dili it Dili” (Persian is the language of the dog), “Rus o Fars o Armani, Azerbaijani Dushmani”(Russian, Persians and Armenians, the enemies of Azerbaijans), Kurds are our guests and etc. clearly showed a fascist and pan-Turkist movement which is guided from outside.  Indeed attacks on Armenian stores in Tabriz which had nothing to do with the cartoon further illustrates this point.  It should be noted that Iran’s regime due to its lack of care with regards to Iranian nationhood has given pan-Turkists a free ride in brainwashing a portion of the youth of Azerbaijan in Iran.  These youths hold their hands like the grey wolves of Turkey, howl and are full of hatred with regards to Armenians, Kurds, Persians and other Iranians.    It should be noted that to any neutral observer , there was nothing insulting in the cartoon.  The cockroach spoke both Persian and Persian slang.  Namana, although originally an Azeri word has entered Tehrani slang and is used by the average Tehrani without them knowing the origin of the word.  The pan-Turkists used this word as an execuse to burn banks and yell slogans full of hatred.  The growth of pan-Turkism is a fact though, but it should be remembered that pan-Turkism can at most gain ground amongst the Turkic speaking minority in Iran which is no more than 20%.  The majority of Azerbaijanis will not gravitate towards Pan-Turkism.  Also Iran can easily find allies in the region who are under pan-Turkist threats. 

 

Here is a picture of the cockroach speaking Persian:

 

Image:Azeri Cartoon Persian speaking cockroach .jpg

 

 

Using the key words "dialogue" (گفتمان), and "violence" (خشونت ورزی) plus mentioning the problems in understanding their own conversation , is pointing to the reformist's nomenclature vs. conservatives in Iran .  The famous reformist motto "Diologue between Civilizations” that former president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami was insisting on it , was a source of criticism among intelligentsia , because they thought when it was not possible to have dialogue and mutual understanding between Iranians themselves (conservative-reformist) , how would that be possible to have such a conversation between Iran and the western civilizations? 

 

Thus the cockroach issue was simply misused by pan-turkists to burn banks and vent anger at other Iranian ethnic groups.  Given the small number of people that showed up this year, it seems that many people are understanding the aims of pan-Turkists groups.  Let us hope so.  We will quote the report and commentary of the Iranian from Azerbaijan who was eyewitness.

 

 

 

سوسك‌ها و پان‌ترك‌ها

درج طنزي كودكانه در روزنامه‌ي ايران 22 ارديبهشت ماه گذشته، بهانه و بستره‌اي – اگرچه واهي – را فراهم آورد تا سرانجام اشرار تجزيه‌طلب و بيگانه‌پرست پان‌تركيست گوشه‌هايي از ماهيت واقعي خود و توطئه‌اي را كه ديرزماني است با پشتيباني مالي و معنوي واشنگتن و باكو، و با اتكا به جريان‌ساز‌ي‌هاي مزدوراني چون ناصر پورپيرار، براي فرروپاشي و تجزيه‌ي ايران تدارك ديده‌اند، برملا و آفتابي كنند.
غائله و اغتشاش كوري كه اشرار پا‌ن‌ترك به بهانه‌ي دروغين «اعتراض به توهين به اقوام» (!)، و با به ميدان آوردن مشتي عوام الناس مطلقاً ناآگاه و بي‌خبر از اصل ماجرا، در برخي از شهرهاي استان‌هاي ترك‌زبان برپا كردند، به خوبي پرده از ترفندهاي آنان براي عوام‌فريبي و آشوب‌گري برداشته است. وطن‌فروشان پان‌ترك، در ضمن اغتشاشات خياباني خود، با تعرض به جان و مال مردم، تخريب اموال عمومي، تاراج مغازه‌ها و حمله به بانك‌ها و ادارات، نشان دادند كه خواست و آماج واقعي مكتب جعل و جهل و فريب (پان‌تركيسم) چيست و حاميان و رهبران بيگانه‌ي آنان چه نقشه‌هاي شومي را براي گسترش ناامني و ضربه زدن به اقتدار و عزّت كشور و ملت ايران، تدراك ديده‌اند. اگرچه مي‌دانند و مي‌دانيم كه ملت بزرگ ايران، به ويژه ايرانيان آذري، همواره در برابر توطئه‌هاي پليد بيگانگان بدخواه هشيار بوده‌اند، و هر گاه كه دشمنان ايران به گوشه‌اي از اين خاك گهربار چشم طمع دوخته‌اند، تا واپسين قطره‌‌ي خون خويش از اين مرز و بوم دفاع كرده‌ و حتا يك وجب از خاك خويش را به دشمن واننهاده‌اند. درسي كه شوروي كمونيست در دهه‌ي 20 و عراق بعثي در دهه‌ي 60 از هجوم به ايران بزرگ گرفتند، از يادها نخواهد رفت.
اما در پيوند با رويدادهاي اخير، بايد به چندين نكته اشاره كنم:
1- واقعيت آشكار آن است كه داستان طنز روزنامه‌ي ايران هيچ گونه ارتباطي با ترك‌زبان يا هر گروه ديگري ندارد و نمي‌تواند داشته باشد. موضوع اين داستان، شرح حال زيست‌شناختي و بوم‌شناختي سوسك (بلاي جان بسياري از مردم شهرهاي بزرگ) به زباني طنز و كودكانه است، و هيچ يك از توصيفات آن را نمي‌توان با انسان يا گروهي از انسان‌ها مطابقت داد. البته اگر كسي وجود داشته باشد كه خود را «سوسك» بپندارد و در نتيجه گمان كندكه محتواي داستان ياد شده بدو اشاره دارد، اين ديگر مشكل خود اوست! متأسفانه اكثريت قريب به اتفاق كساني كه به بهانه‌ي اين مطلب در اغتشاشات اخير شركت كرده بودند، متن آن را نخوانده و تنها به القائات داعيان پان‌تركيسم گوش سپرده بودند.
اما كارتون همراه اين داستان نيز حاوي توهين به صاحبان هيچ زبان و گويشي نيست و اين تصور كه كارتون مورد بحث ترك‌زبانان را به سوسك تشبيه كرده، مطلقاً خطا و اشتباه است. در متن داستان گفته مي‌شود كه: «دستور زبان سوسكي هم آن قدر سخته (هنوز هيچ كس درست نفهميده كدوم فعل‌هاشون ing مي‌گيره) كه هشتاد درصد خود سوسك‌هام بلد نيستن و ترجيح مي‌دن به زبون‌هاي ديگه حرف بزنن». در كارتون مورد بحث نيز به همين موضوع اشاره شده و در آن، پسربچه‌اي با زبان «سوسكي» به سوسك مي‌گويد كه: «soosoo soosking sisko sooski sooskung». اما چنان كه در متن گفته شده، چون سوسك زبان خود را درست نمي‌فهمد، از حرف‌هاي پسربچه سر در نمي‌آورد و به زباني ديگر (در اين جا: تركي) به سادگي مي‌گويد: «چي؟!» (به تركي: نمنه). بنابراين زبان سوسك، همان زباني است كه پسربچه بدان سخن گفته و ing دار است (مانند زبان انگليسي!)، و نه، مثلاً زبان تركي، كه سوسك در اين جا ناگزير به استفاده از آن شده است. بر اين اساس، روشن است كه كارتون مورد بحث، نه زبان سوسك‌ها را تركي دانسته است و نه ترك‌‌زبانان را به سوسك شباهت داده است. اما نكته‌ي بسيار مهمي كه در لابه‌لاي غوغاگري‌هاي اشرار تجزيه‌طلب پان‌ترك از چشم‌ها پنهان ماند، آن است كه در يكي ديگر از كارتون‌هاي همين داستان، سوسك بي‌نوا، هنگامي كه با پر غلغلك داده مي‌شود، جمله‌اي را به زبان فارسي ادا مي‌كند و مي‌گويد: «نه، جون مادرت، هي هي!». http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7980/147/320/susk.jpgاگر قرار باشد صرف بيان يك واژه‌ي تركي از زبان سوسك، توهين به ترك‌زبانان عالم انگاشته شود و چنين غائله‌اي به پا شود، پس فارسي‌زبانان دنيا نيز بايد اداي يك جمله‌فارسي از زبان سوسك را توهيني بزرگ به خود بدانند و همه جا را به آشوب بكشند؟ اما واقعيت آن است كه هيچ فارسي زباني چنين نكرد! در هر حال آشكار است كه در اين جا نيز بر مبناي متن داستان، سوسك به جهت ندانستن زبان soosking خود، باز ناگزير شده به زباني ديگر (در اين جا: فارسي) سخن بگويد. به همين سادگي! البته واضح است كه براي اشرار تجزيه‌طلب اساساً متن و محتواي اين داستان مهم نبوده و عوام نيز كه اصلاً اطلاعي از اصل موضوع نداشته‌اند. آنان فقط در پي اغتشاش و خرابكاري بودند و متأسفانه روزنامه‌ي ايران و طراح هنرمند و آذري آن، مانا نيستاني، قرباني توطئه‌ي از پيش طراحي و برنامه‌ريزي شده‌ي پان‌ترك‌هاي آشوبگر شد.
2- يكي از اهداف اشرار پان‌تركيست از برپايي اغشاشات اخير (علاوه بر تلاش براي القاي اين توهم كه در ايران ميان شهروندان مناطق مختلف كشور [به تعبير آنان: اقوام] اختلاف و درگيري عميقي وجود دارد و شهروندان يك منطقه از كشور [به تعبير آنان: قوم فارس!] به شهروندان منطقه‌اي ديگر [به تعبير آنان: قوم ترك!] پيوسته در حال توهين و ظلم و تعدي‌اند، و بنابراين بايد هر چه زودتر از اين كشور جدا و مستقل شد و خود را از اين شرّ اين درگيري‌ها و توهين‌ها و ستم‌ها رها كرد)، به راه انداختن مانوري عوام‌فريبانه و نيز امتيازگيري از دولت بوده است. چنان كه در غالب بيانيه‌هايي كه به مناسبت مسائل اخير از سوي گروه‌هاي قوم‌گرا و حتا از جانب شخصيت‌هاي سياسي آذري منتشر شد، پس از اعتراض به توهين خيالي روزنامه‌ي ايران، به ناگاه با لحني آمرانه و طلبكارانه درخواست تشكيل فرهنگستان زبان تركي، تدريس زبان تركي در مدارس، و توجه به آباداني و توسعه‌ي مناطق ترك‌زبان مطرح شده است! اين همه ادعا در حالي است كه ايرانيان ترك‌زبان %20 كل جمعيت ايران را تشكيل مي‌دهند و اين حقيقت جواز راه‌اندازي فرهنگستان زبان تركي و تدريس زبان تركي را در مدارس (يا تبديل شدن زبان تركي به دومين زبان ملي ايران، چنان كه پان‌ترك‌ها مي‌گويند) به هيچ كس نمي‌دهد. آيا تاكنون در ايالات متحده‌ي امريكا يا كانادا به سبب وجود جمعيت پرشمار چيني‌زبان، فرهنگستان زبان چيني برپا شده يا زبان چيني در مدارس آنان تدريس مي‌شود؟! روشن است كه تدريس زبان‌هاي محلي در مدارس امري كاملاً بي‌معنا است، چرا كه هر فردي زبان محلي خود را از گهواره‌ي خويش فرا مي‌گيرد، و لذا فقط زبان ملي است كه براي آشنايي همگان با آن، مي‌بايست در مدارس آموخته شود. اما بحث از فقر و توسعه‌نيافتگي مناطق ترك‌زبان (شمال غرب ايران) جز طنز و مطايبه چيز ديگري نمي‌تواند باشد؛ چرا كه علاوه بر ظواهر امر، آمارهاي رسمي نيز نشان مي‌دهند كه شمال غرب ايران يكي از آبادترين و توسعه‌يافته‌ترين و ثروت‌مندترين مناطق كشور است.
3- چنان كه مي‌دانيد، عنوان اصلي گذاشته شده به تيم ملي فوتبال ايران، ستارگان پارسي بود كه متأسفانه تحت تأثير اغتشاشات اخير و حتا اعتراضات برخي شخصيت‌هاي سياسي آذري، با طرح اين ادعا كه تيم ملي فوتبال ايران به «قوم» فارس (!) متعلق نيست و به همه‌ي «اقوام» ايران تعلق دارد، تغيير داده شد. اما حقيقتي كه قوم‌سازان و قوم‌‌پرستان و حتا بسياري از شخصيت‌هاي سياسي كشور از آن ناآگاه‌اند اين است كه در ايران چيزي به نام «قوم فارس»، يا هر قوم ديگري وجود ندارد. در چارچوب كشور ايران تنها و تنها «ملت ايران» و «مليت ايراني» موجود است و تفاوت‌هاي زباني و گويشي موجود ميان شهروندان مناطق مختلف كشور، فقط نشان دهنده‌ي وجود تنوع فرهنگي در كشور است و نه چيز ديگري. واحدي به نام «قوم فارس/ پارس» نزديك به دو هزار سال پيش در جامعه‌ي يك‌پارچه‌ي ايران تحليل رفت و از اين رو گفت‌وگو از «قوم فارس/ پارس» در ايران معاصر، بي‌معنا و فاقد موضوعيت است؛ و دقيقاً از اين رو است كه قوم‌سازان و تجزيه‌طلبان تاكنون نتوانسته‌اند مشخص كنند و توضيح دهند كه منظورشان از «قوم فارس» يا «فارس‌ها» دقيقاً چيست. اما از آن جا كه مهم‌ترين دودمان‌هاي پادشاهي ايران (هخامنشيان و ساسانيان) از ايالت پارس/ فارس برخاسته بودند، توسعاً، كل كشور ايران، چنان كه در متون كهن و ميانه‌ي يوناني، لاتيني، ارمني، سرياني، چيني، و فارسي – عربي دوران اسلامي مشاهده مي‌شود، از ديرباز و سنتاً پارس/ فارس/ فُرس خوانده مي‌شده است. حتا هنوز نيز در زبان‌هاي اروپايي از كشور ايران گاه با نام پارس (انگليسي: Persia؛ فرانسوي: ‍Perse) ياد مي‌شود و البته اگر خواست رضا پهلوي نبود، نام رسمي ايران در اسناد بين المللي هنوز پارس بود. بنابراين مشخص است كه عنوان پارسي / فارسي، منحصراً داراي مفهومي ملي است و نه قومي، و عنوان‌هاي چون ستارگان پارسي نيز به همه‌ي مردم ايران دلالت و اشاره دارد.
4- از جمله شعارهاي موهني كه اشرار تجزيه‌طلب در اغتشاشات خياباني اخير خود مي‌دادند، «مرگ بر ارمني» بود! همين نكته‌ي ظريف خود دليلي است روشن بر اين كه منشأ و سرچشمه‌ي اصلي آشوب‌هاي اخير جايي جز باكو، كه دولتمردان آن ارمنيان را دشمنان خود مي‌پندارند (و اسراييل را نزديك‌ترين دوست‌شان) نبوده است. بديهي است كه ايرانيان هيچ گاه با ملت دوست و برادر ارمنستان مشكلي نداشته‌اند، اما پان‌ترك‌هاي داخلي از آن رو كه خود را داراي ريشه و تبار ايراني نمي‌دانند بل كه خويشتن را با ترك‌زبانان قفقاز و اران هم‌خون و هم‌سرنوشت مي‌پندارند، طبيعي است كه همواره و به هر مناسبتي پرچم به اصطلاح جمهوري آذربايجان (اران) را بر سر خود بگردانند و سنگ دولت‌مردان آن خطه را به سينه بزنند و در دفاع از منافع آنان شعار دهند.
5- يكي از نتايج مثبت اغتشاشات اخير رخ داده در مناطق ترك‌زبان كشور، آن بود كه مسؤولان جمهوري اسلامي ايران سرانجام به عمق فاجعه پي بردند. با وجود آن كه سال‌ها بود ايرانيان ميهن‌پرست درباره‌ي تحركات خزنده‌ي جريانات تجزيه‌طلب و پان‌تركيست هشدار مي‌دادند، اما دولت‌مردان از جديت و حساسيت موضوع آگاه نبودند. اما اينك، با مشاهده‌ي آشوب‌ها و خرابكاري‌هاي هدايت شده‌ي تجزيه‌طلبان در مناطق ترك‌زبان، ديگر بر اين حقيقت واقف شده‌اند كه بايد به گونه‌اي جدي و اساسي جريانات تجزيه‌طلب را ريشه‌كن كرد و تقويت و تحكيم مباني هويت ملي را در دستور كار قرار داد تا ايمان و افتخار به ايراني بودن در دل و جان همه‌ي ايرانيان براي هميشه نشيمن كند و بر استحكام و استواري و آسيب‌ناپذيري وحدت و اتحاد ملي بيافزايد.

 

شعارهاي تجزيه‌طلبان در اغتشاشات اخير شمال غرب ايران

با تداوم اغتشاش و خرابكاري تجزيه‌طلبان پان‌تركيست در شماري از دانشگاه‌ها و شهرهاي شمال غرب كشور، گوشه‌ي ديگري از جنايات اين گروه بر آناني كه از ابعاد و ريشه‌هاي جريان پان‌تركيسم ناآگاه بودند، آشكار گرديد. اگرچه سال‌ها پيش از اين، نويسنده‌ي اين سطور، بحراني را كه اينك جريانات وابسته‌ي تجزيه‌طلب برپا كرده‌اند، پيش بيني نموده و نسبت به حركت خزنده‌ي اين گروه به سوي آشوبگري و فاشيسم هشدار داده بود، اما عدم توجه مردم و مسؤولان بدين موضوع، سرانجام فضاي مناسبي را براي برپايي مانوري عوام فريبانه از سوي پان‌تركيست‌هاي نژادپرست فراهم آورد. با وجود اين، عدو سبب خير شد و در پي اغتشاشات اخير، با انتقال اقدامات تجزيه‌طلبان از فاز تئوريك و زيرزميني به فاز عملياتي و علني، توجه مردم و مسؤولان به ابعاد و گستردگي بحران جلب گرديد و اقدامات ِ، اگر چه ديرهنگام، اما گسترده‌اي براي ريشه‌كني عوامل فاسد جريان پليد پان‌تركيسم و تجزيه‌طلبي انجام شد. بي‌گمان با توجه پيوسته‌ي عموم مردم و همه‌ي مسؤولان به حراست از وحدت ملي و تماميت ارضي ايران، و تلاش براي تحكيم و تقويت هويت ملي و مؤلفه‌هاي آن، گروه‌هاي وابسته‌ و آشوبگري چون پان‌ترك‌ها، ديگر هرگز مجالي براي عوام فريبي و خرابكاري و خودنمايي نخواهند يافت.
مروري بر شعارهايي كه تجزيه‌طلبان پان‌تركيست در اغتشاشات اخير شمال غرب سرمي‌دادند، به خوبي، وابستگي و ماهيت فاشيستي و شيطاني اين توطئه را برملا خواهد ساخت:
آذربايجان بيدار است، بر زبان تركي استوار است!
رييس جمهور! عذر بخواه!
اروميه بيدار است، به تبريزش متكي است!
تركي زبان مادري‌ام است، مدرسه، مدرسه!
تركيه! كمك!
تبريزما خون مي‌گريد، تركيه از دور تماشا مي‌كند!
اروميه به پا خيز، در تبريز خون جاري است!
اي هم‌ميهن به پا خيز، در تبريز برادر[ت] كشته شد!
زبان تركي رسمي شود!
زبان تركي آزاد شود، دشمنان‌اش خوار شوند!
زنده باد آذربايجان، نابود باد آپارتايد!
ملت آذربايجان چنان ذلتي را تحمل نمي‌كند!
بيدار شو ترك بيدار شو، آذربايجان در تنگنا است!
روشني خاموش شدني نيست، زبان تركي عوض شدني نيست!
مرگ بر فاشيسم! ننگ باد بر شووينيسم!
زبان تركي مردني نيست، با زباني بيگانه عوض شدني نيست!
مرگ بر فاشيسم!
مرگ بر شووينيسم!
مرگ هست، بازگشت نيست!
زبان تركي رسمي شود، به چشم دشمنان خار شود!
ما ترك‌ايم، خود ترك، آذري گفته‌ي دشمن است!
هر كسي به زبان خودش بايد مدرسه داشته باشد!
راه ما، راه ملت و حق است!
اي «ملت» محبوب، زنده و پاينده باشي!
خون شهيدم را پس بدهيد، زبان ملت‌ام را بدهيد!
خون شهيد از ميان نمي‌رود، زبام ملت‌ام نابود نمي‌شود!
پاسخ فقط: از گور بيرون بيا، شورش كن!
در تبريز خون جاري شد، تهران از دور تماشا كرد!
اين خون از ميان نخواهد رفت!
آذربايجان بيدار است، به هويت خود استوار است!
آذربايجان نخوابيده است، هويت‌اش را از دست نداده است!
آذربايجان زنده باد، زبان تركي رسمي باد!
وزیر ارشاد استعفا استعفا!
يا مرگ ياد آزادي
! اگر قفس‌ام از طلا باشد، [باز] هوس آزادي را دارم!
ما خلق اروميه‌ايم، سرباز بابك‌ايم!
زنجاني‌ها نمرده‌اند، زبان تركي را نفروخته‌اند!
به زبان تركي مدرسه، مدرسه!
هوار! هوار! من ترك‌ام!
ما براي مرگ حاضريم، سرباز بابك‌ايم!
آذربايجان متحد شود، منافق نابود شود!
ترك تركي را به فارس نمي‌فروشد!
خاك بر سرت بي‌غيرت!
اين سو و آن سوي [ارس] يكي شود، پايتخت‌اش تبريزشود!
مرگ بر آپارتايد!
من آتش‌ام، با آتش بازي نكن، آتش مي‌گيري مي‌سوزي!
آينده مال ما است!
آذربايجان بايد متحد شود، مركزش تبريز شود!
يا مرگ يا قراباغ، جز اين راه ديگري ندارم!
آذربايجان بيدار است، به زبان خودش استوار است!
مرگ بر ايران!
امروز هوا ابري است، مردك‌هاي فارس خواب‌اند!
آذربايجان آزاد شود، روح بابك شاد شود!
سوگند به ستار خان، تهران را به خون مي‌كشيم!
آذربايجان مال ما است، افغانستان مال شما!
زبان فارسی، زبان سگ [است]!
آناني كه بی‌طرف‌اند، از فارس هم بی‌شرف‌ترند!
ترك، ترك را به فارس نمی‌فروشد!
سوگند به ستارخان، تهران بايد به آتش كشيده شود!
آذربايجان بيدار است، كردها مهمان ما هستند!
تبريز، باكو، آنكارا! فارس‌ها كجا ما كجا!
در اروميه خون جاري است، آنكارا از دور تماشا می‌كند!
مرگ بر ارمني!

 

 

Here is a criticism of another Iranian Azerbaijani:

 

http://robo.wordpress.com/2006/05/18/iran-caricature

 

 

سوء استفاده از کاریکاتور ایران به نفع پان ترکها

راستش من هیچ توهینی تو این کاریکاتور نمیبینم، مگر اینکه آدم بخواد خیلی قلبی-قره (مشکی قلبانه!) زیر اون جملات خط بکشه. و بعد از اینکه چند بار خوندش بیاد و دوباره ازش نتایج دیگری رو استخراج بکنه.
البته همیشه از این دست مسائل ریشه‌های جانبی داره. برای مثال در اردبیل ما که دانشگاه آزاد شلوغ شده بیشتر از نظر من که با محیط اینجا آشنایی دارم عللی کاملاً متفاوتتر از کاریکاتور ایران داره. یکیش میتونه پان-ترکهایی باشند که در دانشگاه آزاد تجمع قابل توجهی دارند و تازگی در پی یک شب شعر کاملاً پان-ترکی دانشگاه انجمن اینها رو تعطیل کرده پس اینها کاملاً آمادگیش رو دارند که یک بهانه‌ای پیدا بکنند و چند آدم بی‌خبر رو تحریک بکنند و در پشت این برنامه‌ها دنبال اهداف جدایی‌طلبانه‌ی خودشان باشند…

میدانید که تا جایی که توانسته‌ام از ترک و ترک ایرانی دفاع کرده‌ام. الان هم حرفم اینه که روزنامه‌ی ایران مال ملت ایران است و نباید با یک شوخی کاملاً غیر مستقیم اینهمه جنجال کرد. قبل از همه‌ی اینها هم "اصطلاح نمنه" دیگه یک کلمه‌ی است که وارد شده به فارسی و خیلیها در مکالمات روزمره ازش استفاده میکنند.

عطف به ما سبق همیشه هم بد نیست! یادتان است کاریکاتور استاد تمساح نیک‌آهنگ را؟ سالها ما فکر میکردیم که این کاریکاتور کاملاً عمدی بوده ولی چند وقت پیش که نیک‌آهنگ رسماً و در کمال آزادی اعلام کرد که اون کاریکاتور کاملاً آرشیوی بوده و اصلاً به آیت‌الله مصباح ربطی نداشته و بعضی از سودجویان سوژه‌اش کرده‌اند برای اهداف سیاسی، چه شد؟ آیا کسی دنبال آن آدمها گشت که از یک کاریکاتور و یک کاریکاتوریست بخت برگشته برای اهداف خودشان سوءاستفاده کردند؟ آیا کسی این آدمها را به 209 اوین فرستاد؟

اصلا دوست ندارم وارد این جنگهای فرسایشی بشوم. نوشتم که شاید تلنگری باشد.

 

Response to Vaziri and Joya Sa’ad Blondel

 

 Alireza Asgharzadeh dismayed with the historical truths about Iran’s long national identity and sense of nationhood is forced to rely up upon writes who attempt to question Iran’s identity.  Two of these writers are Mustafa Vaziri and Joya Sa’ad Blondel.  Mustafa Vaziri in his book claims that “Iranian” in Sassanid inscriptions and Shahnameh means Zoroastrians and doubts the validity of the name Iran. 

 

The whole thesis of Mustafa Vaziri has been refuted completely by a series of articles by Professor Jalal Matini and Professor Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq.

 

مقدمه: ايران در گذشت روزگاران

ايران در دوران باستان

ايران در دوران اسلامي

چند ياد داشت بر مقاله ايران  در گذشت روزگاران

چند ياد داشت ديگر بر مقاله ايران در گذشت روزگاران

ياد داشتي ديگر بر مقاله ايران در گذشت روزگاران

اثر: دکتر جلال خالقي مطلق و دکتر جلال متيني

 

 Thus this author will not delve into Vaziri’s book as the above response is more than comprehensive and scholarly.

 

It is clear that Iranians and Iran have remained a nation and a country in much of the last 2,500 years. The Euro-centric belief argues that: (1) "nation" is a European construct; (2) the origins of the nation- state began in Europe after the peace of Westphalia in 1648; and (3) the other constructions of nationhood in the Thirds World are artificial imitations of the Europeans who had colonized them and taught them about the notion of nation.

This Euro-centric perspective has made many to argue that Iranian nationalism is an artificial construction of recent times. A typical rendition of this argument is Joya Blondel Saad, The Image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature (Lanham, MD; University Press of America, 1996). Saad writes that Iranian nationalism is the invention of the 18th and 19th century Europeans, that Iranians borrowed it from the Europeans, and that Iranian nationalists are anti-Arab racists.

Anyone who is familiar with the pre-Islamic history of Iran, the resistance to the Arab-Islamic conquest of Iran, and the existence of cultural articulation of Iranian nationhood by many including Ferdowsi, the 10th century poet, knows that Saad's view is clearly mistaken. Franklin Lewis, formerly of Emory University (and now in the University of Chicago), in his excellent review of Saad's book, writes:

"This argument I find problematic for a number of reasons. First, the modern definition of Iran in terms of a linguistic, ethnic, racial and territorial entity distinct from its foreign, and specifically Arab, neighbors appears in fully articulated form in the Shu'ubiyya movement of the 10th and 11th centuries, and indeed much earlier. The Avesta speaks of the Airyanem Vaeja, the homeland of the Aryan Iranians, and in the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, the sharp distinction between Iran and non-Iran (an-iran)-- rivals and invaders variously associated with mythic, Greek, Turkic, and then eventually Arab and Muslim peoples— gives the story its primary contours.

Ferdowsi's sense of tragedy over the conquest of Sasanid Iran stems not so much from the religion of the conquerors (Ferdowsi was, after all, Muslim), but because of the nomadic and uncivilized nature of the victorious Arab tribesmen who brought the saga of the Iranian nation to an end. Ferdowsi curses fate for allowing a superior and glorious civilization, which had withstood the attacks of its enemies since mythopoetic time immemorial, to succumb to barbarian invaders, whom he characterized as lizard- eaters and camel milk-drinkers with overwhelming ambitions on the realm of the Persians ('ajam, itself an Arabic word for the linguistic Other, which however came to inform Iranian self- definition as referring specifically to Persians and Sasanain Iran).

....But the Arab for these poets [Naderpour, Akhavan-e Sales] is not a contemporary living being, he is merely a symbol in the nationalism of nostalgia, formulated already a thousand years earlier in the Shahnameh.”

Professor. Lewis Franklin concludes “The central argument of this book appears to be flawed.”

 

Review of the book: "The image of Arabs in Modern Persian Literature"

Prof. Lewis Franklin

 

As demonstrated extensively by Professor Jalal Matini and Professor Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq, the idea of Iranian nationalism is deeply rooted and has absolutely nothing to do with 19th century western nationalism.  Defensive nationalist movements such as  Shua’bbiya movement (encompassing people from Abu Muslim Khorasani, Muqanna, Mazyar, Babak Khorramdin, Ferdowsi..), the rise of the Parthians, the Sassanids counter balancing of Hellenism, the Sarbedaran movement who fought against Turkic invaders of Khorasan and etc. are all examples of Iranian nationalism.  All these movements have been defensive in history and have tried to protection Iranian nationhood through literature and other means.  For example, on the Sarbedaran, who defended Khorasan and wanted to remove foreign rule, we read:

 

It is worth mentioning that whereas Iranian nationalism, even when xenophobic at times, has been defensive, this has not been the case for such fascist movements as pan-Arabism (the genocide against Kurds, deporation of 300,000 Iranians from Iraq) or pan-Turkism (genocide against Armenians and Greeks).

 

For an excellent exposition into this matter, the reader is referred to:

 

سيماي ايرانيان در کتابهاي درسي اعراب

اثر: طلال عطريسي

Pan-Arabism's Legacy of Confrontation with Iran

By: Dr. Kaveh Farrokh

 

Thus as can be clearly seen from historical material, Iranian sense of nationalism is not a new concept.  It is very clear that Iranian self-consciousness existed during the era of Ferdosi, Shuabbiya’, Sarbedaran and etc.  The Persian poet Asadi Tusi who spent most of his time in the court of Kurdish\Daylamite dynasties of Azerbaijan has also shown this self-conscioussness.  For example Ferdowsi remarks:

بسی رنج بردم درین سال سی

عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی

A poet in the service of Al-Kart, a rival dynasty of the Sarbedaran of Khorasan remakrs after the defeat of the Sarbedaran forces:

 

گر خسرو کرت بر دلیران نزدی

وز تیغ یلی گردن شیران نزدی

از بیم سنان سربدران تا حشر

یک تُرک دگر خیمه به ایران نزدی

 

The self-consciousness of Iranians has been the major factor in inhibiting Turkification and Arabization of Iranian lands and peoples.  Pan-Turkists like Alireza Asgharzadeh and Alireza Nazmi Afshar, who are part of the expansionist plans of regional pan-Turkism will do their best to use the falsehood of Pourpirar/Zehtabi to deny the existence of Iranian nationhood and self-conscious. 

 

 

   Yes the majority of Iranians have been victims.

 

 Alireza Asgharzadeh on pg 41 of his books claims.

“Throughout most of Iran's recent history, the majority of Iranians have been victims of racism and xenophobia.”

 

And here this author whole heartedly agrees.  The majority of Iranians (Indo-Iranian groups in Iran) have been a victim of 200 years of Arab oppression of Ummayyads and futher oppression at the hands of Mongols, Tatars and other invaders who plundered, killed and pillaged Iran without mercy.  Here is a clear example of that oppression:

 

خاطرات نجم الدين رازي معروف به دايه نیز گواه خوبی در اين باره است.  وي يکي از رهبران مهم صوفيه و نثر نويس پخته اين روزگار است که تا سال 653 زنده بوده است. او شاگرد نجم الدين کبري است که در حمله مغولان به خوارزم در ميدان جنگ کشته شده است. مهم ترين اثر وي، کتاب مرصاد العباد است که راه هاي سلوک عرفاني را به زبان پارسي دري شرح داده است. دربخشي از اين متن به حمله ترک و مغول و گريز خود اشاره کرده است. با هم اين بخش را مي خوانيم:
«در تاريخ شهور سنۀ سبع و عشر و ستمائه (617) لشکر مخذول ِ کفار تتار استيلا يافت بر آن ديار ، و آن فتنه و فساد و قتل و اسر و هدم و حرق که از آن ملاعين ظاهر گشت، در هيچ عصر و ديار کفر و اسلام کس نشان نداده است و در هيچ تاريخ نيامده الا انچه خواجه(پيغمبر) عليه الصلوة و السلام از فتنه هاي آخر الزمان خبر باز داده است و فرموده: لا تَقومُ السٌاعة حتي تُقاتِلوا التٌُرک صغارَ الاعين حُمرَ الوجوه ذلف الانوف کان وجوههم المجان المطرقة ، صفت اين کفار ملاعين کرده است و فرموده که ، قيامت برنخيزد تا آنگاه که شما با ترکان قتال نکنيد، قومي که چشم هاي ايشان خرد باشد و بيني هايشان پهن بود و روي هاي ايشان سرخ بود و فراخ همچون سپر پوست در کشيده. و بعد از آن فرموده است: و يکثر الهرج، قيل: يا رسول الله! ما الهرج؟ قال:القتل ، القتل. فرمود که قتل بسيار شود. به حقيقت، اين واقعه آن است که خواجه عليه الصلوة و السلام به نور نبوت پيش از ششصد و اند سال باز ديده بود. قتل ازين بيشتر چگونه بود که از يک شهر ري که مولد و منشـأ اين ضعيف است و ولايت آن قياس کرده اند ، کما بيش پانصد هزار آدمي به قتل آمده و اسير گشته. و فتنه و فساد آن ملاعين بر جملگي اسام و اساميان از آن زيادت است که در حٌيز عبارت گنجد... عاقبت چون بلا به غايت رسيد و محنت به نهايت و کار به جان رسيد و کارد به استخوان...اين ضعيت از سهر همدان که مسکن بود به شب بيرون آمد با جمعي از درويشان و عزيزان در معرض خطري هرچ تمام تر ، در شهور سنۀ ثمان عشر و ستمائه به راه اربيل و بر عقب اين فقير خبر چنان رسيد كه كفار ملاعين..به شهر همدان آمدند و حصار دادند و اهل شهر به قدر و وسع بكوشيدند و چون طاقت مقاومت نماند - كفار دست يافتند و شهر بستند و خلق بسيار كشند و بسي اطفال را و عورات را اسير بردند و خرابي تمام كردند و اقرباي اين ضعيف را كه به شهر بودند٬ بيشتر شهيد كردند.
باريد به باغ ما تگرگي
وز گلبن ما نماند برگي»

  Elamites survived 2000+ years of Aryan presence but wiped out after the Arab and Seljuqid invasionsl

 

Asgharzadeh starts the beginning of Chapter 2 with his usual emotional outbursts.  His complete lack of knowledge of history is again revealed.

 

In his History of the Persian Empire, A.T. Olmstead (1948) casts some light, albeit extremely feeble and obscured, on the existence of Iran's pre-Achaemenid indigenous peoples and their civilization. Although faithfully following the conventional Eurocentric and Orientalist tradition, he does dare to venture into the annals of forgotten histories and pay some lip service to the lives and civilizations of peoples who existed prior to the migration of Aryan/Indo-European tribes to "the great plateau."  Considering the existing "conspiracy of silence" on the topic by both Orientalist and the official nationalist/local historiographies, Olmstead's fleeting allusion to Iran's indigenous peoples is in itself a sort of risk taking, and hence admirable:

Long before the great plateau was called Iran it was well populated. Obsidian flakes have been found under the alluvial deposits from the last glacial period, while men of the late Stone Age left their flint implements in the open. By the fifth pre-Christian millennium, numerous tiny hamlets sheltered a peaceful agricultural population, which satisfied its aesthetic instincts through fine wheel-made pots decorated with superb paintings; an elaborate though lively conventionalization of native flora and fauna betrayed more interest for all subsequent art on the plateau. (Olmstead, 1948, p. 16)

 

Olmstead's colorful depiction of indigenous life on the plateau begs the questions: What happened to the indigenous populations of that great plateau after the arrival of the nomadic groups who later on came to be identified as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans? What happened to the civilizations, cultures, languages, arts, and artifacts that preexisted the Aryan tribes in the region? A lively rainbow of cultures, languages, races, and communities coexisting side by side for millennia surely cannot disappear into thin air. Or can it? If it cannot, then how is it that there is no mention of its existence in Iran's Orientalist, official, national, conventional, and elite historiography? Strangely enough, being vanished and banished from the official history is exactly what has happened in the case of Iran's pre-Achaemenid indigenous populations. The Orientalist historiography on Iran and its offshoot, the Iranian official, national, conventional, and elite historiography, have been deafeningly silent about the existence of the plateau's indigenous peoples, their cultures, languages, and civilizations. For this dominant pseudo historiography, the history of Iran starts with the history of Achaemenid dynasty (559-330 BC), and particularly with the adventures of its founder "Cyrus the Great" (580-530 BC), presumably the first Aryan king in the region.

 

Reading the above emotional outbursts, it is easy to see that Asgharzadeh suffers from serious emotional problems.  For example he does not know that it is European and Orientalists who have discovered the Elamite, Manna, Lulubi, Gutti, Hurrian and other non-Indo European people.  Asgharzadeh in the above says: “he does dare to

venture into the annals of forgotten histories and pay some lip service to the lives and civilizations of peoples who existed prior to the migration of Aryan/Indo-European tribes to "the great plateau." 

 

 It is amazing that Asgharzadeh thinks that book about the Persian Achaemenid empire should discuss for example what happened in Iran 7000 years ago.  All Asgharzadeh had to do was check the title and note the books title is “History of the Persian empire”.  Also what Asgharzadeh does not seem to understand is that with the exception of the Elamites (where many books by orientalists have been written), there is absolutely no writing from any other group from in Iran.  There are few inscriptions in Urartu from the Kurdish areas of Iran (mainly SE of lake Urmia), but the main center of Urartu civilization is eastern Armenian.  According to I.M. Diakonoff:

 

“The Armenians according to Diakonoff, are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.”

(Armenians” in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn.).

 

Thus, it should not amaze Asgharzadeh that there are much more books written about Elamites and the Achaemenid empire than say the Lulubi, Gutti, Manna and other civilizations which we do not have any writing and text from.  For example, from the Achaemenid era, we have abundant written evidence from Egypt, Anatolia, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Iraq and etc.  Even most of the worlds elamite texts are from the Achaemenid era, showing that the language was flourishing in that era.  Thus it should not surprise Asgharzadeh that Westerners and Russian scholars have written extensively about the Achaemenids and Elamites:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/ELAM/elam_main.htm

 

What really bothers Asgharzadeh is the fact that while indo-Iranian prescence is firmly established by the Mittani civilization about 3500 years ago (basically in the area of modern Iranian, Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan):

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Aryan/aryanmain.htm

There is absolutely no evidence what so ever of any Altaic civilization and there is not a single extant written sample of Turkish from Azerbaijan well up to at least the Ilkhanid era.  So these factors has made Asgharzadeh angry and thus since he sees that the ancient Persian empire can not be appropriated to “Turkic civilization”, then it should be disregarded.  Asgharzadeh does not understand that the Achaemenid empire is part of the shared history of all Iranians.

 

Asgharzadeh writes:

“What happened to the indigenous populations of that great plateau after the arrival of the nomadic groups who later on came to be identified as Aryans, or Indo-Europeans? What happened to the civilizations, cultures, languages, arts, and artifacts that preexisted the Aryan tribes in the region? A lively rainbow of cultures, languages, races, and communities coexisting side by side for millennia surely cannot disappear into thin air. Or can it?”

 

We have already discussed the Urartu and Hurrian civilizations.  They form a component the Armenian people and became part of their nation.  Indeed Hurrian/Urartu traces can be found in Armenian vocabulary:

 

Hurro-Urartian Borrowings in Old Armenian

by: I.M. Diakonoff (1985)

Some effects of the Hurro-Urartian People and Their Languages upon the Earliest Armenians

John. A. C. Greppin (1991)

Commented upon by: I. M. Diakonoff

 

 

َSome of the groups like Gutti, Lulubi, Kassite and Manna have left us no or very little writing.  As shown by Diakonoff and agreed upon by the Azerbaijani scholar, Professor. Ighrar Aliyev, the Medes were a confederation of Aryan groups as well as Gutti, Lulubi and Manna.  Already we see Indo-Iranian names amongst the Manna confederation.

According to Professor Zadok:

“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.”

Furthermore analyzing onomastic samples, he states:

“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 Aza, are explicable in Old Iranian terms.”

MANNEA by R. Zadok in Encyclopaedia Iranica

 

 

Thus by the time of the Achaemenid empire, the Manneas were already a component of the Medes.

 

Another group that is claimed by the pan-Turkists is the Guttians. 

 

According to Professor. Marc Van De Mieroop:

 

The Assyrian royal annals use the word Gutians when they refer to Iranian populations otherwise known as the Mannaeans or the Medes (Parpola, p. 138). The negative image persists: In the fifteenth century the Babylonian king Agum-kakrime calls them "a barbarous people" (Reiner, p. 80). The seventh-century Assyrian king Assurbanipal accuses Gutians of assisting the rebellious Babylonians (Luckenbill, p. 301), while the sixth century Babylonian king Nabonidus stated that they destroyed the temple at Sippar (Oppenheim, p. 309).

In the first millennium Gutium could be used as a geographical designator to refer to all or part of the Zagros region north of Elam, interchangeably with other terms. When Cyrus II The Great (q.v.) attacked Babylonia in 539 B.C.E., he did so with the help of Ugbaru, Nabonidus' governor of the land of Gutium (Oppenheim, p. 306). In this context the term seems to refer to a large region east of the Tigris River which Cyrus used as a launching pad for his invasion. Ugbaru was probably the Gobryas (q.v.) reported by Xenophon to have switched allegiance to Persia and to have led the army against Babylonia (Briant, pp. 51-52).  While many references to Gutians and Gutium can be collected (Hallo), they do not allow us to write the history of a people or a country. The Mesopotamians used the terms in a variety of ways, depending on the context. At times they may have had a particular region and people in mind, at other times they used the terms to indicate diverse non-Mesopotamian lands or peoples.

(“Gutians” in the Encyclopedia Iranica by Marc Van De Mieroop

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v11f4/v11f4045.html)

 

Thus we can see that the Gutians of the Zagros mountains were in constant conflict with the mespotamian groups.  They allied themselves with Cyrus the great and were part and parcel of the Persian empire.  The fact of the matter is that Asgharzadeh does not seem to understand that the abundant material from the Achaemenid empire allows historians to write many books where-as for  people that did not have a writing system like the Gutians or Mannaeans, this makes it much more difficult.  Either way, it is the opinion of I.M. Diakonoff, Ighrar Aliyev and Professor. Ran Zadok that the Gutians played an important role in the Mannean confederation and the Mannean confederation later on was absorbed and became part of the indo-Iranian speaking Medes.

 

The case is similar for the Lulubians which we have no writing from.  According to Professor. Ran Zadok:

 

The lulubi: country of a people who probably originated in southern Kurdistan; the form of the name is identical in both Sumerian and Akkadian, namely Lulubi and Lulubum respectively…There is no evidence that the Lullubians, who inhabited part of modern Kurdistan, are the ancestors of the modern Lurs, who dwell further south. 

 

(“Lulubi” in the Encyclopedia Iranica by Ran Zadok:

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp9/ot_lulubi_20051223.html

 

Thus our knowledge of the Lulubi are insignificant.  They left us no writing.  But according to Ighrar Aliev and I.M. Diakonoff, they were are acculturated by the Medes.

 

We now cover the more complicated case of the Elamites.  Most Elamite texts are actually from the achaemenid era and represent the Persepolis fortification tablets.  For the ancient history of Elam the reader may refer to the following scholarly articles:

 

Elam by I.M. Diakonoff

Elamite and Dravidian: Futher Evidence of Relationship

David McAlpin, Current Antrophology, Vol. 16, No. 1

Elam from Encyclopedia Britannica

Elam(Iranica Entry) :

FRANÇOIS VALLAT

ELIZABETH CARTER

R. K. ENGLUND

MIRJO SALVINI

SYLVIE LACKENBACHER

Elamite God d.Gal

Walther HinzW

JNES 1965

تمدن ايلام

اثر: داريوش کياني

سابقه تاريخي اسکان عشاير عرب در خوزستان

اثر: دکتر خنجي

ملاحظاتی درباره تاریخ ایلام نوین

اثر: کارن سهرابی

بررسي نظرهاي پان ترکيستها و پان عربيستها درباره ايلاميان

 

 

Before we continue with the Elamites, it is interesting to read an article from the Later Professor. Muhammad Danamayev on the Achaemenid-Elamite fortification tablets.

 

PERSEPOLIS ELAMITE TABLETS

 

By: Muhammad Dandamayev

 http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Achaemenid/Persepolis/Persepolis_Tablets.jpg

 

Persepolis Elamite tablets, administrative records in Elamite inscribed on clay tablets. Parts of two archives of such tablets were discovered in Persepolis in 1933-34 and 1936-38 by the archaeological expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. They belonged to administrative records kept by agencies of the Achaemenid government during the reigns of Darius the Great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I.

 

Achaemenid Tablets7.jpg (51490 bytes)

 

Persepolis Fortification Tablet in CU1.jpg (82728 bytes)

Persepolis_Fortification_Tablet_in_CU1.jpg (82728 bytes)

Persepolis Fortification Tablet in CU2.jpg (63719 bytes)

Persepolis Fortification Tablet in CU3.jpg (93662 bytes)

Persepolis Fortification Tablet in CU4.jpg (61274 bytes)

Persepolis_Fortification_Tablet_in_CU5.jpg (47015 bytes)

 Pictures courtesy of Iran National Museum (Click to enlarge)

The first group of the texts was found in the Fortification area at the northeastern corner of the terrace platform, hence their designation as "Persepolis Fortification Tablets." The find consisted of over 30,000 tablets, whole or fragmentary, of which 2,120 texts (44 with Aramaic glosses, see below) have already been edited and translated by Richard T. Hallock (1969; idem, 1978), while the rest remain unpublished (including many he edited and translated, although his manuscript archive has been used by several scholars, most notably Walther Hinz and Heidemarie Koch, 1987). The documents were drafted between the 13th and the 28th regnal years of Darius I, that is, from 509 to 494 B.C.E. Although all were found in Persepolis, they originated from a large area of Persis and Elam, and some were actually written in Susa.

 

The second group of the tablets was discovered in a northeastern room of the Treasury of Xerxes; hence they are conventionally called "Persepolis Treasury Tablets." They date from the 30th year of the reign of Darius I to the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes 1 (i.e., 492-458 B.C.E.). In all 753 tablets and fragments were discovered, and of these, 128 have so far been published (Cameron, 1948; idem, 1958; idem, 1965). A large number of the fragments are too worn out or broken to afford connected texts and meaningful readings.

The Fortification Tablets include many records of transactions (chiefly concerned with distribution of foodstuffs, management of flocks, and provisioning of workers and travelers) at locations throughout most of Persis and eastern Elam, and probably at some locations to the northwest and southeast of those areas. The records drawn up at those sites were sent to a central office at Persepolis. The Fortification texts also include many records compiling and tabulating information from similar registrations into accounts covering many months, or relatively large areas, or both. These compilations were made in the offices of Persepolis itself. The tables vary in size, shape and format. Many of them are small in format, and record single transactions or single groups of transactions in outlying areas.

The Fortification Tablets contain two sub-groups. One represents records of large operations for the transport of various commodities from one place to another in accordance with economic requirements and for the creation of state reserves or a seed fund. The other category gives registers regarding the distribution of products to workmen (kurtaš) of the royal economy and to state officials, as well as fodder for livestock and poultry. Among these registers there are journals with eighty or more lines, which record the expenditure of barley, flour, dates, fruit, beer, etc. at a particular place by a particular department in the course of one or more years, repeating the contents of separate receipts for the issue of products for specific purposes. Official correspondence of highly placed royal officials has also been preserved as well as texts recording the receipt of livestock and grain that had been turned over as royal taxes in Persis and Elam. According to one text, 3,000 bar (1 bar = ca. 10 liters) of barley were brought into Persepolis by a single storekeeper (Hallock, 1969, No.6). Another document indicates that nearly 700 shepherds drove "the sheep of the king" from Persis to Susa (Hallock, 1969, No. 1442).

The Treasury Tablets record the issue of silver and foodstuffs primarily to workmen of the royal economy in Persepolis (Pârsâ) and its suburbs. The most frequently mentioned are Cappadocians, Lydians, Carians, Thracians, Ionians, Sogdians, Bactrians, Babylonians and Egyptians. All documents were apparently drawn up in the immediate vicinity of Persepolis. All intact tablets have rounded right edges and squared-off left edges stamped with seal impressions.

The Treasury Tablets are divided by their formularies into "letters" and "memoranda." The letters from various officials, addressed to the head of the treasury in Persepolis, order that a certain sum be paid to individuals who carry out specified work, while the memoranda record the nature and duration of the work performed, the official responsible, and the amount of silver or foodstuffs paid to workmen in various categories according to their qualifications.

Some of the Fortification and Treasury texts contain the personal decrees of Darius I. For instance, he ordered the issue of 200 marriš (1 marriš = ca. 10 liters) of wine from the palace stores and 100 sheep to the queen Irtašduna (see ARTYSTONE), who was one of his wives (Cameron, 1942, pp. 214ff, corrected by Hallock, 1969, No. 1795). According to a Treasury text, 530 karša (44 kg) of silver were distributed by personal order of Darius to thirteen individuals, mostly with Iranian names, who had rendered some important service to the king (Cameron, 1948, No. 4). A number of Fortification Tablets contain records of the activity on estates belonging to members of the royal family. Evidently such records also constituted a part of the palace archive.

The distribution of pay is quite interesting. In 509-494, workmen and officials were paid only in kind (grain, flour, rams, wine, beer, fruit). In 492-458, they received un-minted silver in addition to foodstuffs. But not even the highest state official was ever paid with money, although the invention of Persian coinage by Darius the Great dates from the last decade of the sixth century, if not earlier (see DARIC). For instance, the manager of the royal household received daily two sheep, 18 bars of flour and 9 marriš of beer and wine, i.e. 90 to 180 times more than the workmen and couriers (Hallock, 1969, Nos. 666-669, etc.).

The texts also contain rich data on the delivery of state mail to various regions of the empire. Couriers were sent to nearly all the satrapies from Susa, the administrative capital of the Achaemenid Empire, bearing the king's decrees. Reports from the satraps and other officials addressed to the king were usually forwarded to Susa; most of them were probably destined for the royal chancellery there. Many civil servants arrived in Susa on state business from various lands of the empire, stretching from Egypt to India. In particular, the documents speak of travel to Susa and Persepolis by state officials and messengers from Media, India, Arachosia, Sagartia, Areia, Gandara and Bactria. Provisions for them were issued en route from storerooms. Stations with reserves of foodstuffs were situated on the main roads at intervals of one day's journey. Vouchers regarding the receipt of foodstuffs along the road were drawn up at road stations and were later delivered to Persepolis for accounting purposes. A Babylonian, Bêl-etÂir by name, was engaged in the delivery of documents from Persepolis to Susa and back (Hallock, 1969, Nos. 1381, 1382). Another Babylonian was the manager of the royal storehouse for flour and wine at one of the road stations (Hallock, 1969, Nos. 81, 489, etc.).

The Persepolis texts also constitute a valuable source for the study of the Old Iranian lexicon, since they contain many Iranian words and names in Elamite garb. Of the approximately 1, 900 names in the texts, one-tenth are Elamite and a small number Babylonian, while the rest (nearly 1,700) are Iranian (see Benveniste, pp. 75ff.; Gershevitch, 1969, pp. 167ff.; idem, 1969 a, pp. 165ff; Mayrhofer; Hinz, 1975). In addition to Persians and Medes, representatives of many other Iranian tribes (Chorasmians, Bactrians, Sakai, Areioi, etc.) are also mentioned. Since various Iranian groups used dialect forms of one and the same name, the names recorded in the tablets naturally show graphic variants. As expected, many Elamites were also employed in the administration apparatus in southwestern Iran. But a large number of them apparently bore Iranian names as a result of long-term contacts with the Persians.

The texts also shed fresh light on religion in ancient Persis (see ZOROASTRIANS UNDER ACHAEMENIDS), and on the religious policies of the Achaemenids (see Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 132-49). Thus, in 500 B.C.E., a priest received 80 bar of grain, of which 40 were destined for the cult of Ahuramazdâ, the supreme Persian god, and 40 for Mišduši, another Iranian deity (Hallock, 1969, No. 337). Another priest was issued 7 qa (1 qa = ca. 1 liter) for Ahurmazdâ, 2 marriš for Humban, the supreme Elamite god, and 3 marriš for libations to three rivers, 1 mariš for each (Hallock, 1969, No. 339). Grain and wine were issued also for the Iranian god Narišanka (Nairyôsanha), the Elamite deity ˆimut and the Akkadian Adad as well as for other divine beings of uncertain origins, Nabbazabba, Anturza, and Turma. (Hallock, 1969, Nos. 338, 770, 1956, 1960, 2073, etc.; idem, 1978, No. 2). Thus, produce was supplied from the royal storehouses for the performance of the cult not only of Iranian gods, but also of Elamite and Babylonian deities. Moreover, the gods of the Iranian pantheon appear less frequently in the texts than the Elamite deities, and the royal administration treated all these gods equally.

Some of the Fortification Tablets are accompanied by short glosses or dockets in Aramaic, written on the labels in ink. About 700 or more of the tablets have monolingual Aramaic inscriptions (unpublished). A large but as yet unascertained number of the tablets bear no inscription but carry seal-impressions of various types. The holes and remnants of the cords at the corner of the Treasury Tablets indicate that they were originally attached to leather scrolls bearing Aramaic duplicate of each Elamite text. In addition, 199 clay tablets with impressions of seals containing an Aramaic inscriptions have been discovered. It appears that the Persian civil servants gave their orders orally and their scribes translated them simultaneously into Elamite and Aramaic (see Altheim - Stiehl, pp. 78-82: Gershevitch, 1979). Although during the period when the Fortification and Treasury tablets were written the Elamite language was extensively used in clerical work alongside Aramaic, in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., Aramaic finally supplanted it.

The Fortification and Treasury tablets have considerably advanced our knowledge of Achaemenid glyptic art. They bear the impressions of official seals used by royal bureaucrats. Most of them are cylinder seals (q.v.), although there are also a few stamp seals. More than 100 impressions are labeled in cuneiform script, many of them trilingual (in Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian) but some in Old Persian only. A small number are inscribed in Aramaic. The royal seal with the trilingual cuneiform text "I, Darius . . .," which continued to be used even during the reign of Xerxes, was at the disposal of the chief of the treasury (see Hinz, 1971, p. 262). Some seals belonged to senior officials. Many labels with impressions of seals have also been preserved. These labels were attached as accounting documents to objects, which were stored in the treasury. A fair number of the impressions on the Treasury tablets have been published (cf. Cameron, 1948, pp. 55-8; Root, pp. 118-22; Schmidt, pp. 10ff.; Schmitt, pp, 20-6.

The impressions on the Fortification tablets are being published by M. B. Garrison and M. C. Root (2001-). Some have already been well publicized. Of these, one depicts a mounted warrior who is striking down an enemy with his spear while two other foes are lying prostrate beneath his horse. This seal bears the inscription in Elamite: "Cyrus the Anshanite, son of Teispes" (see Garrison 1991, pp. 4-7; Idem and Root, 1996, pp. 6-7 and fig.2a-c). It had originally belonged to Cyrus I (q.v.; r. ca. 640-600 B.C.E.), the grandfather of Cyrus the Great (Hallock, 1977, p. 127).

It is worth mentioning in passing that a Babylonian private legal document drafted at Persepolis in the time of Darius I has been preserved among the Fortification tablets (Stolper, pp. 299ff.). One Babylonian document has also been found among the Treasury tablets (Cameron, 1948, No. 85). It records the payment of state taxes by several Medes in 502. Finally, a short inscription scrawled in Ionic letters has been found among the Fortification tablets (Hallock, 1969, p. 2).

 

 

Bibliography:

bullet

F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, Die aramische Sprache unter den Achäimeniden, parts 1-3, Frankfurt am Main, 1961-1962. 

bullet

A. Arfa¿i, "La grande route Perse‚polis-Susa. Une lecture des tablettes provenant des Fortifications de Perse‚polis," Topoi, Orient–Occident, 9/2 1999, pp. 33-45. 

bullet

E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en iranien ancien (Travaux de l'Institut d'etudes iraniennes de l'Universite‚ de Paris 1), Paris, 1966, pp. 75-99. 

bullet

G. G. Cameron, "Darius' Daughter and the Persepolis Inscriptions," JNES 1, 1942, pp. 214-18. 

bullet

Idem, Persepolis Treasury Tablets (The University of Chicago. Oriental Institute Publications 65), Chicago, 1948. 

bullet

Idem, "Persepolis Treasury Tablets old and new," JNES 17, 1958, pp. 161-76. Idem, "New Tablets from the Persepolis Treasury", JNES 24, 1965, pp. 167-92. 

bullet

M. B. Garrison, "Seals and the Elite at Persepolis: Some Observations on Early Achaemenid Persian Art," Ars Orientalis 21, 1991, pp. 1-29. 

bullet

Idem and M. C. Root, Persepolis Seal Studies (Achaemenid History IX), Leiden, 1996. 

bullet

Idem and M. C. Root, Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets. I: Images of Heroic Encounter (in two parts: 1. Text, 2. Plates), The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 117, Chicago, 2001 (Vol. II: Images of Human Activity and Vol. III: Animals, Creatures, Plants, and Geometric Devices are in preparation). 

bullet

I. Gershevitch, "Amber at Persepolis," Studia Classica et Orientalia Antonio Pagliano Oblata 29, Rome, 1969, pp. 167-251. 

bullet

Idem, "Iranian Nouns and Names in Elamite Garb," TPS, 1969, pp. 165-200. 

bullet

Idem, "The Alloglottography of Old Persian," TPS, 1979, pp. 114-89. 

bullet

R. T. Hallock, "A New Look at the Persepolis Treasury Tablets," JNES 19, 1960, pp. 90-100. 

bullet

Idem, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 92, Chicago, 1969. 

bullet

Idem, "The Persepolis Fortification Archive," Orientalia 42, 1973, pp. 320-23. Idem, "The Use of Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets," Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6, 1977, pp. 127-33. 

bullet

Idem, "Selected Fortification Texts," CDAF 18, 1978, pp. 109-36. Idem, "The Evidence of the Persepolis Tablets," Camb. Hist. Iran II, 1985, pp. 588-609. 

bullet

W. Hinz, "Zu den Persepolis-Täfelchen," ZMDG 110, 1961, pp. 236-51.

bullet

Idem, "Die elamischen Buchungstäfelchen der Darius-Zeit," Orientalia 39, 1970, pp. 421-40.  

bullet

Idem, "Achämenidische Hofverwaltung," ZA 61, 1971, pp. 260-311. Idem, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden, 1975. 

bullet

Idem and H. Koch, Elamisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols, Berlin, 1987. 

bullet

H. Koch, Die religiösen Verhältnisse der Dareioszeit. Untersuchungen an Hand der elamischen Persepolis-Täfelchen, Wiesbaden, 1977. 

bullet

M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolotana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen, Vienna, 1973. 

bullet

M. C. Root, The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art (Acta Iranica. Encyclopedie permanente des etudes iraniennes, troisieàme se‚rie 9), Leiden, 1979. E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis 2: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, Chicago, 1957. 

bullet

R. Schmitt, Altpersiche Siegel-Inschriften (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. K1. 381), Wien, 1981. 

bullet

M. W. Stolper, "The Neo-Babylonian Text from the Persepolis Fortification," JNES 43, 1984, pp. 299-310.

 

 

 

What is interesting is that unlike the lunacy materials of Pourpirar/Zehtabi, western scholars have worked hard to examine the Elamite civilization.  What the persepolis Elamite tablet shows is that Elamite was a robust language during the Achaemenid era.  As noted by many scholars, Elams main center was in Khuzestan. 

Before the rise of the Achaemenid empire, there was war between Assyria and Elam.

 

It is well known that the last Elamite king, Khumma-Khaldash III, was captured in 640 BC by Ashurbanipal, who devastated the country.  Ashur Bani Pal brags:

 

Susa, the great holy city, abode of their Gods, seat of their mysteries, I conquered. I entered its palaces, I opened their treasuries where silver and gold, goods and wealth were amassed...I destroyed the ziggurat of Susa.. I smashed its shining copper horns. I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods and goddesses I scattered to the winds. The tombs of their ancient and recent kings I devastated, I exposed to the sun, and I carried away their bones toward the land of Ashur. I devastated the provinces of Elam and on their lands I sowed Salt.

(Persians: Masters of the Empire (Lost Civilizations), Time Life books, pg 7-8)( The Cambridge Ancient History

, I E S Edwards, Cambridge Universit, 2005. pg 58-59).

 

 

One can compare this to the Cyrus the Great when he entered Babylon:

 

"I am Cyrus, King of the World, Great King, mighty King, King of Babylon, King of the Four Quarter…

“ I well-disposed, entered Babylon and amidst public Jubilation,  eat on the royal throne...

“My numerous troops took over Babylon without molestation.  I allowed no one to harass or terrorize the peoples of Sumer or Akad.

"I concerned myself with the needs of the Babylonians and their sanctuaries to promote their well being.

 "I  freed the citizens of Babylon from the yoke of servitude.    1 restored their dilapidated dwellings and redressed their grievances.

"The cities of Ashur and Sus, Agade and Ashnuna,..and all the holy cities beyond the Tigris, whose sanctuaries lay in ruins for a long time, I restored and their gods, I returned to their places and all the peoples of these lands I gathered in their own places and restored them to their dwellings.

http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html

 

Indeed, where-as Shah Ismail I (highly admired by Asgharzadeh) threatened to kill all inhabitants of Tabriz if they did not convert to Shi’ism (and he killed some 20,000) and indeed when Ashur Bani Pal’s, Changhizes, Teymurs and Atila’s of the world talk about destruction and when patrons of Shaffer/Asgharzadeh talk about “shock and awe’, here was a great man who acted as loving care-taker. 

 

Thus we can see that the Achaemenids not only supported Elamite and used Elamite, but furthermore they brought prosperity to Shusha and Babylon.  Where-as the Assyrian kings, a century prior to the rise of the Persian empire devasted Elam.

 

It should be noted that the Achaemenid empire clearly shows a multitude of people working together in harmony.  Persepolis and the hall of the nations is one example of this.  Another example is the army of the Darius the Great.  Herodotus counts 69 groups of people who served in the army of Darius I. (See: Cuyler Young, Jr., T., "The consolidation of empire and its limits of grows under Darius and Xerxes," in Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IV, 1988). (Among these people include Armenians, Tapurians, Hyrcanians, Medes, Persians, Sogdhians, Arians, Parthians, Khwarzmians, Sogdians, Mokranians, Indians, Bactrians, Babylonians, Arabs, Assyrians, Elamites, Kaspians, Scythians, Sagartians, Phyrigians..)

 

 

Going back to the Elamites, it is clear for all scientists today that the Elamite language was robust, specially in Khuzestan and survived up to at least the 10th-11th century A.D.

 

As was shown, Elamite was an important language in the Achaemenid era.  In the Parthian era, the elymians according to Professor Daniel Potts were also present and prosperous.

 

The survival of the Elamites as a distinct ethno-linguistic group is well-attested in the period fol­lowing Alexander the Great's conquest of Western Asia. In Khuzistan we find continued occupa­tion at major sites like Susa in the last centuries BC and first centuries AD, along with the foundation of important new sites like Masjid-i Solaiman, Tang-i Sarvak and Bard-e Nechandeh. Greek and Latin sources from the period speak of Elymais and the Elymaeans, in whom we can recognize without difficulty latter day Elamites. To a large extent the Elymaeans resisted the imposition of foreign rule by the successors of Alexander the Great, the Seleucid emperors (so named after the founder of the dynasty, Seleucus I). The geography of Elymaean territory was described by Strabo and attacks against them were made by several Seleucids, notably Antiochus III and IV.

….

Elymais, as we have seen, is nothing but the Graecized form of the more ancient name Elam, and as the sources make clear, the Elamites were, in their late manifestation, very much a part of the cultural and political landscape of southwestern Iran during the Seleucid and Parthian periods. Like their earlier forebears, they raided southern Mesopotamia on numerous occasions, and were subject to the oppression of foreign political powers, first the Seleucids and then the Parthians. Like the Elamites of earlier centuries, the Elymaeans were noted for their prowess in archery and had a reputation of being great warriors. There is more than a touch of the 'barbarian' in Greek and Latin ethnographic descriptions of the Elymaeans, even though agricultural pursuits are occasionally mentioned.(The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of the Ancient Iranian State. By D. T. POTTS. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIV. PRESS, 1999. pages 354 and 406)

 

 

On the Sassanid era and Elamites, Professor Daniel Potts comments:

 

The link between the ancient past of Khuzistan and its Sasanian incarnation was far more profound than one of simple geography. We have seen that as late as the tenth century AD, Arab writers confirm that a language other than Arabic, Persian, Hebrew or Aramaic was still being spoken in the region, and there are not many choices apart from a late form of Elamite. But beyond this, we also have the evidence of the later Nestorian sources. In contrast to earlier Nestorian sources which generally referred to the district as Beth Huzaye, an Aramaic term derived ultimately from the Old Persian Huza, later Syriac writers preferred to speak of 'Elam' (Fiey 1979: 223), and thus we find Theodore bar Koni referring to Beth Lapat as the 'city of the Elamites', and a synodal letter of AD 781/2 addressed to Ephrem, metropolitan of Beth Lapat, and to the 'bishops, priests and faithful of Elam' (Fiey 1979: 256). Similarly, another synodal letter of AD 790 sent by the catholicos Timothy notes that Ephrem held 'the seat and the throne of Elam', while his successor Sergius was called 'metropolitan of Elam' (Fiey1979: 258). The Syriac codex 354 in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, and the tables of Elias of Damascus, sources dating to c. AD 900, list the dioceses belonging to the ecclesiastical province of Elam as Susa or Karkha d'Ledan and Susa, Beth Huzaye or al-Ahwaz, Shushtrin/Tesr or Shushtar, and Mahraqan Qadaq (Fiey 1979: 264). In recount­ing the events surrounding two letters sent by the 'occidental fathers' to the catholicos Dadisho in AD 424, the fourteenth century AD writer 'Awdisho' of Nisibis (Gero 1981: 3; Voobus 1965; Fiey 1977) names 'Agapit of Elam', the metropolitan of Beth Lapat, as the bearer of one if not both of the letters (Fiey 1970: 73, n. 38). As the last bishop from the area to attend a Nestorian synod was Joseph, present at the synod of Timothy II in AD 1318, Fiey has suggested that the ecclesiastical province of Elam finally succumbed to the onslaught of Tamerlane around AD 1400 (Fiey 1979: 267). (The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of the Ancient Iranian State. By D. T. POTTS. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIV. PRESS, 1999.  p 430).

 

Indeed we have statement from Ibn Nadeem about the language of Khuzi in the Sassanid era.

 


ابن نديم در الفهرست مي‌نويسد:

فأما الفهلوية فمنسوب إلى فهله اسم يقع على خمسة بلدان وهي أصفهان والري وهمدان وماه نهاوند وأذربيجان وأما الدرية فلغة مدن المدائن وبها كان يتكلم من بباب الملك وهي منسوبة إلى حاضرة الباب والغالب عليها من لغة أهل خراسان والمشرق و اللغة أهل بلخ وأما الفارسية فتكلم بها الموابدة والعلماء وأشباههم وهي لغة أهل فارس وأما الخوزية فبها كان يتكلم الملوك والأشراف في الخلوة ومواضع اللعب واللذة ومع الحاشية وأما السريانية فكان يتكلم بها أهل السواد والمكاتبة في نوع من اللغة بالسرياني فارسي

(= اما فهلوي منسوب است به فهله كه نام نهاده شده است بر پنج شهر: اصفهان و ري و همدان و ماه نهاوند و آذربايجان. و دري لغت شهرهاي مداين است و درباريان پادشاه بدان زبان سخن مي‌گفتند و منسوب است به مردم دربار و لغت اهل خراسان و مشرق و لغت مردم بلخ بر آن زبان غالب است. اما فارسي كلامي است كه موبدان و علما و مانند ايشان بدان سخن گويند و آن زبان مردم اهل فارس باشد. اما خوزي زباني است كه ملوك و اشراف در خلوت و مواضع لعب و لذت با نديمان و حاشيت خود گفت‌وگو كنند. اما سرياني آن است كه مردم سواد بدان سخن رانند).

 

 

A very similar explanation is given by the medieval historian Hamzeh Isfahani when talking about Sassanid Iran.  Hamzeh Isfahani writes in the book Al-Tanbih ‘ala Hoduth alTashif that five “tongues” or dialects, were common in Sassanian Iran: Fahlavi, Dari, Farsi (Persian), Khuzi and Soryani.  Hamzeh (893-961 A.D.) explains these dialects in the following way:

 

Fahlavi was a dialect which kings spoke in their assemblies and it is related to Fahleh. This name is used to designate five cities of Iran, Esfahan, Rey, Hamadan, Man Nahavand, and Azerbaijan.  Farsi (Persian) is a dialect which was spoken by the clergy (Zoroastrian) and those who associated with them and is the language of the cities of Fars.  Dari is the dialect of the cities of Ctesiphon and was spoken in the kings' /dabariyan/ 'courts'. The root of its name is related to its use; /darbar/ 'court* is implied in /dar/. The vocabulary of the natives of Balkh was dominant in this language, which includes the dialects of the eastern peoples.  Khuzi is associated with the cities of Khuzistan where kings and dignitaries used it in private conversation and during leisure time, in the bath houses for instance.(Mehdi Marashi, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Ibex Publishers, Inc, 1994. pg 255)

 

We also have testimonies from Ibn Hawqal and al-Istakhri that the Khuzi people spoke their language after Islam.  ّFor example, Ibn Hawal:”speaks of the language of the Khuzi of Khuzestanas different from Hebrew, Syriac and Farsi”.  Istakhri also mentions :”The natives of Khuzestan have another dialect, in addition to Persian and Arabic known as Khuzi”) (Mehdi Marashi, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Ibex Publishers, Inc, 1994. pg 256).

 

Thus the Khuzi (Elamites) of Khuzestan ever since the oldest testimony of Indo-Iranians in Iran (the Mitanni kingdom) till the Islamic invasion were a prosperous people.  There was a devastating attack by Ashur BaniPal, but the Elamite language and culture was an important component of the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid kingdom.  Thus only after the Arab invasion and subsequent control of Seljuqs in the region did the ancient Elamite culture disappear. 

 

Also one wonders what happened to the indigineous Armenians/Greeks of Anatolia who were wiped out?  Well one does not have to wonder since the Genocides of these native populations due to pan-Turkism is well known.  Also one wonders why Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Lybia..etc. lost their language and culture and became Arabized?   Or how come the number of Talysh people has decreased in the republic of Azerbaijan (according to official census) relative to 100 years ago?



Indeed it is not bad to remind the readers of the devastating turco-mongol invasion of Iran.

 

Professor Ross Dunn remarks:

 

When Ibn Battuta made his first excursion to Iraq and western Persia, more than a century had passed since the birth of the Mongol world empire: For a Moroccan lad born in 1304 the story of Genghis.Khan and the holocaust he brought down on civilized Eurasia was something to be read about in the Arabic version of Rashid al-Din's History of the Mongols. The Tatar storm blew closer to England than it did to Morocco and had no repercussions on life in the Islamic Far West that Ibn Battuta’s great grandfather was likely to have noticed. For the inhabitants of Egypt and the Levant the Mongol explosion had been a brush with catastrophe, mercifully averted by Mamluk victories but imagined in the dark tales told by fugitives from the dead and flattened cities that were once Bukhara, Merv, and Nishapur.  For the Arab and Persian peoples of the lands east of the Euphrates the terrible events of 1220-60 had been a nightmare of violence from which they were still struggling to recover in the fourteenth century.  "With one stroke," wrote the Persian historian Juvaini of the Mongol invasion of Khurasan., "a world which billowed with fertility was laid desolate, and the regions thereof became a desert, and the greater part of the living dead, and their skin.and bones crumbling dust; and the mighty were humbled and immersed in the calamities of perdition."  The Mongols wreaked death and devastation wherever they rode from China to the plains of Hungary but nowhere more so than in Persia, where most of the great cities of the northern region of Khurasan were demolished and their inhabitants annihilated, A modern historian estimates that the total population of Khurasan, Iraq, and Azerbaijan may have dropped temporarily from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine. The thirteenth-century chronicler Ibn al-Athir estimated that the Mongols killed 700,000 people in Merv alone. That figure is probably a wild exaggeration, but it suggests the contemporary perception of those calamitous events.  The Mongol terror did not proceed from some Nazi-like ideological design to perpetrate genocide. Nor was it a spontaneous barbarian rampage. Rather it was one of the cooly devised elements of the greater Genghis Khanid strategy for world conquest, a fiendishly efficient combination of military field tactics and psychological warfare designed to crush even the possibility of resistance to Mongol rule and to demoralize whole cities into surrendering without a fight. Once the armies had overrun Persia and set up garrison governments, wholesale carnage on the-whole came to an end. Even the most rapacious Tatar general understood that the country could not be systematically bled over the long term if there were no more people left. After about 1260, and in some regions much earlier, trade resumed, fields were planted, towns dug themselves out, and remnants of the educated and artisan classes plodded back to their homes. Some cities, such as Tabriz, opened their gates to the invaders, and so were spared destruction. Others, Kerman and Shiraz for example, were in regions far enough to the south to be out of the path of the storm; they later acquiesced to Mongol overlordship while preserving a degree of political autonomy.

And yet for the mass of Arabic- or Persian-speaking farmers, on whose productive labor the civilization of Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau had always rested, the disaster was chronic. Over the long run the military crisis was not so much an invasion of Mongol armies at it was the last great trek of Turkish steppe nomads from Central Asia into the Islamic heartland, a re-enactment and indeed a continuation of the eleventh-century migrations that had populated parts of the Middle East with Turkish tribes and put their captains in political control of almost all of it. Genghis Khan could never have done more than found some unremarkable tribal-state in Inner Asia were it not for his success at incorporating into his war machine numerous Turkish clans inhabiting the grasslands between Mongolia and the Caspian Sea. Turkish warriors trooped to the flag of Genghis by the tens of thousands, partly because the Mongols had defeated them, partly for the military adventure, partly because rain fell more often and grass grew taller progressively as one moved west and south. Turks far outnumbered, ethnic Mongols in the mounted armies that attacked Persia, and they brought with them their wagons, their families, and their enormous herds of horses and sheep, which fed their way through Khurasan and westward along the flanks of the Alburz Mountains to the thick pastures of Azerbaijan.  Although many of the Turkish invaders had themselves been converted to Sunni Islam in the preceding centuries as a result of contact with urban merchants and missionaries from Khurasan, they joined eagerly in the violent dismembering of Persian society, ridding the land of the farms, crops, irrigation works, and cities that obstructed the free movement of their herds. Over several decades thousands of Iranian peasants were killed, enslaved, and chased off their land. To make matters worse, the early Mongol rulers, beginning with Genghis Khan's grandson Hulegu in 1256, could not quite make up their minds, whether to carry through policies designed to reconstruct the country and revive agriculture or to treat the land as permanent enemy territory by taxing the peasants unbearably and permitting commanders, tribal chiefs, and state "messengers" to devour the countryside at the slightest sign of agrarian health, Ghazan (1295-1304), the seventh Ilkhan (or "deputy" of the Great Khan, as the Mongol rulers of Persia were called), made a determined effort to improve the administrative and fiscal system in ways that would lighten the peasants' tax load, relieve them of indiscriminate extortion on the part of state officials, and restore their will to produce. The reforms had modest success, but they did not -drive the economy decisively upward, owing to the petulant resistance of officials and war lords and the failure of Ghazan's successors to persevere with sufficient energy. The strength and well-being of any civilized society depended on the prosperity of its agriculture, and in this respect Persia and Iraq entered the fourteenth century still dragging the chains of the Mongol invasion, "There can be no doubt wrote the Persian historian Mustawfi in 1340, "that even if for a thousand years to come no evil befalls the country, yet will it not be possible completely to repair the damage, and bring back the land to the state in which it was formerly,".( Dunn, Ross E. (1986). The Adventures of Ibn Battuta. University of California Press. Pg 81-84)

 

 

 

Asgharzadeh continues with his usual anti-Iranian diatribe:

“For this dominant pseudo historiography, the history of Iran starts with the history of Achaemenid dynasty (559-330 BC), and particularly with the adventures of its founder "Cyrus the Great" (580-530 BC), presumably the first Aryan king in the region.”

 

Again, perhaps Asgharzadeh needs a history lesson.  The history of Iran as a unified country indeed does start with Achaemenids.  There was no kingdom or empire that united Iran prior to the Achaemenids.  Note the history of Iran is different than the history of the Iranian people or the history of pre-Achaemenid civilizations in Iran.  Iran as a unified territory began its existence in the Achaemenid era.  The Iranian (Aryan) people are more ancient.  Indeed the Aryan Medes were an Iranian empire.  Or even prior to that, we have Zoroaster who is universally acknowledged as an Iranian (with the exception of pan-Turkist comedians like Zehtabi who are not taken seriously by the scholarly community). 

 

Thus it becomes clear that Western historians have worked hard on Elamites, Urartu, Mannea and etc.  But only the Aryan and Elamite element in Iran have significant writing.  Given the fact that the Elamite language desisted to exist after the Arab invasion, it should not wonder Asgharzadeh why Western historians study Indo-Iranian culture of Iran which is linked to the absolute majority of Iranian people today.  Also Asgharzadeh needs to understand that no one takes pan-turkist lunatics like Zehtabi or the likes of Pourpirar seriously.  Thus Turkic elements in Iran are of much later date and thus the study of Irans ancient history is naturally a study of Indo-Iranian and Elamite elements.

 

So it is no wonder that no one takes pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh and lunatics like Zehtabi/Pourpirar seriously.  Only pan-Turkist lunatics who make up a small minority in the Azerbaijani community of Iran take this sort of nonsense seriously.  Of course pan-Turkism can not grow amongst Aryan-speakers of Iran who are the overwhelming majority of the population and thus Alireza Asgharzadeh’s adverstisement of Zehtabi and Pourpirar has no effect except exposing the lunacy of pan-Turkism. 

 

Dede Qorqod not related to pre-Islamic Iran

 

Asgharzadeh continues his falsification:

“After the introduction of Islam and Islamic civilization to the region in the seventh century, a major improvement took place in existing primitive writing systems, and important texts of religion, history, and literature such as the Zarathustrian holy book of Avesta, Dede Qorqud Kitabi, Khoday-nameh, and Ferdowsi's Shahnameh emerged in the new reformed script that incorporated segments of the surviving pre-Islamic narratives in the region.”(pg 49).

 

First, it should be mentioned that the Avesta script and Pahlavi script are not related to the post-Islamic era.  There are abundant samples of the Pahlavi script prior to the Islamic era.  The Sassanids coins, vessels, rings, inscriptions and etc. are testimony to this fact.  As per the Avesta script, Sir Harold Bailey, Mary Boyce, Franz Grenet, Walter Henning and Karl Hoffman, all very important names in Zoroastrian studies have dated it in the Sassanid era. (Wiesehöfer, Josef, Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse: The Arsacid Empire--Sources and Documentation, Published 1998. pg 157).

 

Second the book of Dede Qorqud has nothing to do with Iran and especially pre-Islamic Iran.  Unlike the Avesta, Shahnameh and Sassanid inscriptions where the name Iran is mentioned (and in the Sassanid era the name encompasses all of Iran), the book of Dede Qorqud does not mention the name Iran once.  The book of Dede Qorqud was unknown in Azerbaijan in the Qajar era.  Whereas the Shahnameh has been continuously recited and remembered since its inception.

Professor Michael E. Meeker notes:

{The Book of Dede Korkut is an early record of oral Turkic folktales in Anatolia, and as such, one of the mythic charters of Turkish nationalist ideology. The oldest versions of the Book of Dede Korkut consist of two manuscripts copied sometime during the 16th century. The twelve stories that are recorded in these manuscripts are believed to be derived from a cycle of stories and songs circulating among Turkic peoples living in northeastern Anatolia and northwestern Azerbaijan.1 Ac­cording to Lewis (1974), an older substratum of these oral traditions dates to conflicts between the ancient Oghuz and their Turkish rivals in Central Asia (the Pecheneks and the Kipchaks), but this substratum has been clothed in references to the 14th-century campaigns of the Akkoyunlu Confederation of Turkic tribes against the Georgians, the Abkhaz, and the Greeks in Trebizond. Such stories and songs would have emerged no earlier than the beginning of the 13th century, and the written versions that have reached us would have been composed no later than the beginning of the 15th century. By this time, the Turkic peoples in question had been in touch with Islamic civilization for several centuries, had come to call themselves "Turcoman" rather than "Oghuz," had close associations with seden­tary and urbanized societies, and were participating in Islamized regimes that in­cluded nomads, farmers, and townsmen. Some had abandoned their nomadic way of life altogether.

…

Composed by an individual who was reworking Oghuz tales in a specific time and place, the Book of Dede Korkut itself bears the marks of social and political history in southwest Asia. The presentation of Oghuz heroes and heroines in the Dede Korkut stories is designed to highlight an Oghuz ethical outlook rather than to celebrate the variety and richness of Oghuz narrative tradition. In this respect, the stories reveal that the Oghuz heritage was, at the time of the Book of Dede Korkut, associated with a question about the proper form of personal identity and social relations. This feature of the Dede Korkut stories may itself be a literary reflection of projects of institutional redesign and remaking that had been pursued by Turkic dynasts in Anatolia for several centuries. In any event, the Dede Korkut ethic became part of Anatolian society and culture by virtue of these dynastic projects. Consequently, the modern Turkish reader who is likely to have an Alba­nian, Circassian, Kurdish, or Arab among his or her forebears is nonetheless able to see a piece of himself or herself in the Dede Korkut stories.}  (Michael E. Meeker, “The Dede Korkut Ethic”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), 395-417)

 

In the book Dede Korkut, we come across the name Istanbul.  The name Istanbul is a recent name after the conquest of Constantinople.  Indeed Constantinople was conquered only in 1453.  Thus the stories of the book are not related to pre-Islamic Iran and have nothing to do with Ian.  There are many Persian and Arabic words in the story (take for example Avesta which has no Arabic or Turkish words) and also references to Islam.    Dr. Firuz Mansuri has shown that the stories of Dede Korkut are from the very late post-Islamic era. 

 

 

ملاحظاتي درباره كتاب دده قورقوت  

اثر: فيروز منصوري

برگرفته از کتاب مطالعاتی درباره تاریخ، زبان و فرهنگ آذربایجان

 

Also there was no settlement of Oghuz groups in Azerbaijan or any part of Iran in the pre-Islamic era.  Similarly in modern Anatolia, Oguz Turkic elements is post-Islamic.  Indeed the newly discovered manuscript of Safinayeh Tabrizi under the heading “language of Tabriz” is clear that the language of Tabriz even in the Ilkhanid era was not Turkish.

 

Two unreliable writers does not equal many Iranian historians!!

Alireza Asgharzadeh continues his unscholarly mumbo-jumbo:

“In the course of the past two decades, many local Iranian scholars have increasingly become suspicious of the effectiveness of these inscriptions as valid sources of historical inquiry and have questioned the biases in their selection as well as the authenticity of their interpretation (Zehtabi, 1999; Poorpirar, 2001a, 2002, 2004).”(49)

 

Asgharzadeh first of all equates two non-scholar revisionists to “many Iranian scholars”.  The fact of the matter is that Poorpirar and Zehtabi are not taken seriously among historians in Iran or outside of Iran.  They are only the darlings of racist pan-Turkists who have a problem with the longevitiy and robustness of Iranian history.  The absurdness of their theories has already been brought forth in the intro.  But the above sentence shows how Asgharzadeh likes to blow things out of proportion.  All of the sudden, two non-scholars (one even without diploma) are equated to mainstream Iranian historians.  Nothing can be further from the truth, but Asgharzadeh so far has lied about population statistics, Iranian history and etc.  So one more falsification is no big deal.

 

Cuneiform and Greek and Old Persian

Asgharzadeh continues:

“The languages used in the cuneiforms vary from the agglutinative language system of the ancient Elamites to Assyrian, Aramaic, Phrygian, Greek, and to what is termed Old Persian.

The important point to highlight in these cuneiforms is the variety of languages used and diversity of peoples depicted.”(49)

 

We already pointed out that due to the fact that pan-Turkists are simply angry, upset and mad at Iranian history, they are in need of appropriating ancient cultures like Elamite which had no relationship with Altaic languages.  Thus they take one out of hundred grammer rules of two languages and try to claim that Elamite is Turkish.  This issue has been dealt with in the introduction of this article.  More importantly though, Phrygia is located in central Anatolia and is not related to Iran.  More importantly, Greek is not a cuneiform language.  Aramaic, Assyrian, Greek, Phrygian and even Urartu do not have any relationship with the Iranian plateu.  It is the true that some Urartu writings have been found in parts of Iranian Kurdistan, but these are very few and the center of Urartu was Anatolia and the expansion of Urartu to Persia was through the conquest of part of the Manna  civilizations.  So this leaves us with Elamite and Old Persian.  Asgharzadeh uses the term : “What is termed as Old Persian”.  There is a subtle hint of bitterness as usual from pan-turkists like Asgharzadeh.  They simply are ticked off (for a lack of better term) that the Persian language has a old history.  Thus falsifiers like Pourpirar and Asgharzadeh try to claim that Old Persian is not an Iranian language and is not related to modern Persian.  It is best to simply refute their claims by the basic lexicon:

 

 

Aspa (پارسی باستان) > asp (پارسی میانه) > اسب (فارسی)

Kāma (پارسی باستان) > Kām (پارسی میانه) > کام (فارسی)

Daiva (پارسی باستان) > dēw (پارسی میانه) > دیو (فارسی)

Drayah (پارسی باستان) > drayā (پارسی میانه) > دریا (فارسی)

Dasta (پارسی باستان) > dast (پارسی میانه) > دست (فارسی)

Bāji (پارسی باستان) > bāj (پارسی میانه) > باج (فارسی)

Brātar (پارسی باستان) > brādar (پارسی میانه) > برادر (فارسی)

Būmi (پارسی باستان) > būm (پارسی میانه) > بوم (فارسی)

Martya (پارسی باستان) > mard (پارسی میانه) > مرد (فارسی)

Māha (پارسی باستان) > māh (پارسی میانه) > ماه (فارسی)

Vāhara (پارسی باستان) > wahār (پارسی میانه) > بهار (فارسی)

Stūnā (پارسی باستان) > stūn (پارسی میانه) > ستون (فارسی)

Šiyāta (پارسی باستان) > šād (پارسی میانه) > شاد (فارسی)

Duruj / drauga (پارسی باستان) >  drōgh (پارسی میانه) < دروغ (فارسی)

 

 

 

Similarly, it should be noted that without modern Persian, Middle Persian and Avesta, Old Persian and all other cuneiforms inscriptions would not have been deciphered 150 years ago. 

 

Old Persian Text

Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 , Part 8 , Part 9 , Part 10

Part 11 , Part 12 , Part 13 , Part 14 , Part 15 , Part 16 , Part 17 , Part 18

Part 19 , Part 20 , Part 21 , Part 22 , Part 23

Roland Kent, 1950

 

Cyrus, the Old Testament and the passing away of Cyrus

Alireza Asgharzadeh in pages 49-54, cherry picks quotes from the Old Testatement, interprets them and also disregards various Assyrian inscriptions.  Let us examine this section.  But briefly, it is noteworthy to remind the reader that Ali Reza Asgharzadeh is extremly angry about the fact that Iranians have an ancient history.  For example while the names and deeds of many Iranians including Darius, Zoroaster, Cyrus, Ardeshir and many others can be found before Christ in historical documents around the world.  Pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh, who hate everything that is related to Iranians, will simply do their best through unacademic writers like Pourpirar to belittle this history.  This sort of childish actions will simply increase the mental pressure on Ali Asgharzadeh and cohorts and will not change the ancient history of Iran.  The fact is the Persian Empire was the first multi-cultural empire in the world encompassing large lands and diverse people.  Cyrus has been praised by Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Jews, Iranians and is part of Iran’s history.  Even the poet Shahryar has praised Cyrus greatly, which shows that Shahryar is not in the camp of Asgharzadeh.  Recently, a group of pan-Turkists attacked the library of Ayatollah Mirza Hussain Tabatabi Tabrizi, the reason being that he wrote in Persian and has shown that Cyrus the Great was probably the Zulqarnain of the Qur’an.  Although the identity of Zul-Qarnain of the Qur’an has not been clear and various proposals have been made, Ayatollah Tabatabi has given good reason in the identification with Cyrus.  Either way, pan-Turkists hatred of Cyrus, Shahnameh, Persepolis, Sassanid, Parthians, Achaemenids, Medes..and anything related to Iranians is simply a disturbting mental problem.

 

The Old Testament is a respectable book, since it is a holy book to 1-2 billion people around the world.  The book of Isaiah, weather written after Isiah or before Isiah is a problem for biblical scholars to solve.  The issue that the book could be written long after Isaiah has been put forth by many respectable scholars and is not related to Pourpirar.  Pourpirar has not added anything new into the mix and indeed has ignored and goofed up historical arguments as before.  For example Asgharzadeh claims:
“Thus Cyrus was charged with the task of building a house for the God of Israel in Jerusalem. It is extremely important to note that in the above passage, Cyrus is identified as the king of Persia. The Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar (2003) argues that at the time of Cyrus the term Persia was not in use yet and it was used for the first time by Darius I (522-586 BC). Cyrus talks not of Persia but of a place called Anshan. "Logically, then, the Book of Ezra must have entered into the Old Testament after Darius" (Poorpirar, 2000, p. 187).”

 

The fact of the matter is that Persia as a name pre-dates Darius and Cyrus II it is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions.  Anshan is also an ancient name that has been mentioned in Sumerian inscriptions referring to SW Iran, which constitutes portions of Khuzestan and Pars province. 

 

Professor John Hansman, based on Akkadian and Sumerian inscripts states:

“ANSHAN (or ANZAN), the name of an important Elamite region in western Fars and of its chief city. Akkadian and Sumerian texts of the late third mil­lennium B.C. first attest the land of Anshan. 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. “

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Anshan”, J. Hansman http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f1/v2f1a091.html)

Furthermore, as per the name Persia, being in use before Cyrus II (Cyrus the Great), Prof. J. Hansman again based on Assyrian inscriptions states:

 

“The earliest reference to the land of Parsua is given in an Assyrian text of the 9th century B.C. Recent studies would locate this district in the vicinity of Kerma@nÞa@h in western Iran (Levine, “Geographical Studies,” pp. 105-­13). The same area is identified as Parsuash in inscrip­tions of Sargon II (721-05 B.C.); these show it to have become a province of the Assyrian empire (see Hansman, “Elamites, Achaemenians,” p. 107, n. 49). It is this Parsuash which presumably rebelled from Assyria and became an ally of both Elamites and Babylonians during the battle fought with the Assyrians at Halule in Mesopotamia (ca. 692 B.C.). Sennacherib claims a major victory over the allied forces in this encounter. Babylonian texts record a more inconclusive result (Cameron, Early Iran, p. 166).” (Encyclopedia Iranica, “Anshan”, J. Hansman http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f1/v2f1a091.html)

 

 “An Assyrian text relating to the destruction of Elam by Ashurbanipal mentions a king of Parsuwash named Kurash (Weidner, “Nachricht,” p. 4). This Kurash is recognized as Cyrus I of the Achaemenid line, who offered submission to Ashurbanipal and sent his son to Nineveh as a testimony of good faith. With this reference the House of Achaemenes first enters the historical record.” (Encyclopedia Iranica, “Anshan”, J. Hansman http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f1/v2f1a091.html)

 

“In a Babylonian text Cyrus II (the Great) gives his grandfather Cyrus I the title “Great King of Anshan” (Prichard, Near Eastern Texts, p. 316). It therefore would seem that the first Cyrus was ruler of the former Elamite province of Anshan/Anzan in Fars and also political chief in Parsuwash. The two lands are certainly identical. Parsuwash/Parsumash would be Assyrian renderings of Old Persian Parsa, which relates specifically to the province of Fars, and is not to be confused with the earlier attested toponym Parsuash located in the region of Kermanshah (Hansman, op. cit., pp. 108-­09). At the same time Anshan remained the traditional name in southern Mesopotamia for the region of northern Fars.   In one passage the Chronicle of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylonia (556-39 B.C.), refers to Cyrus II as King of Anshan; in a further entry Cyrus is called King in Parsu (Smith, Babylonian Texts, pp. 100f.), an Akkadian rendering of Old Persian Parsa. We may therefore understand, as in the case of earlier references to Anshan and to Parsuwash, that Anshan was also considered at this later period a part of the province now called Fars (Hansman, op. cit., p. 109, n. 70). The replacement of Anshan as the local name of that province would have occurred much earlier, when the Achaemenid Persians transferred the ethnic name of their nation, Parsa, to their new homeland in the south. The toponym Anshan is attested only in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription where it is identified as a non-specific location in Parsa/Fars (Cameron, “Old Persian Text,” p. 50).”

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Anshan”, J. Hansman http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f1/v2f1a091.html)

 

Indeed Anshan is also mentioned in the Old Persian inscriptions:

“(3.21-8.) Darius the King says: One man named Vahyazdata -- a town named Tarava, a district named Yautiya, in Persia -- there he abode. He made the second uprising in Persia. To the people he said thus: "I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus." Thereupon the Persian army which (was) in the palace, (having come) from Anshan previously -- it became rebellious from me, went over to that Vahyazdata. He became king in Persia.”( Roland G. Kent, Old Persian, 1953, http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm)

 

 

 

 

Thus unlike the false claims of Pourpirar and Asgharzadeh, who do not have any knowledge of any ancient language, Anshan and Parsua are equivalent and there name Parsua (Parsa) is attested prior to the rise of Cyrus the Great or Darius.  Thus, although the author of this article will not delve into the authenticity of the book Isaiah, the argument of Pourpirar is simply false.  Since Pourpirar does not even have a diploma and does not have knowledge of any ancient Iranian language, and since he is hysterical, he is simply ignored.  But pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh will need pseudo-historians and crazy conspiracy theorists like Pourpirar to tarnish and rewrite Iran’s history.  Such a childish and racist behavior will not enhance the interests of pan-Turkism which Asgharzadeh constantly tries to promote.

 

Also the fact that the book of Ezra must have entered into the Old Testament after Darius is well know by all scholars.  Indeed Ezra lived after Darius I:

 “There have been three primary views with regard to the date of Ezra’s return to Jerusalem. It is clear that the text joins his coming to Jerusalem with the reign of Artaxerxes, but which Artaxerxes is in view?  If Artaxerxes I, Ezra returned in 458 BCE, the seventh year of the king’s reign (Ezra 7:8). After completing certain reforms, it is conceivable that Ezra returned to Susa. Some thirteen years later in 445, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the walls. He stayed for twelve years. During this twelve years Ezra returned again, and the two worked together reforming the exiles. This means that both Ezra and Nehemiah were for a time contemporaries, as is suggested by Nehemiah 8:2. This is the traditional view, but it is not without its problems. Why is Nehemiah the governor not mentioned in Ezra? Further, why is Ezra only mentioned once in Nehemiah’s memoirs and nothing is said of his reforms earlier in 458 BCE?

For these and other reasons, some scholars have developed other scenarios. It has been suggested that Ezra did not return under Artaxerxes I, but Artaxerxes II, in 398 BCE. This places Ezra after the time of Nehemiah. This seems to cohere better with the problem of marriage to foreign wives. If, under the traditional view, Ezra had dealt with that problem, why was it still an issue when Nehemiah arrived some thirteen or so years later? To some scholars it seems that Ezra came after Nehemiah, in the reign of Artaxerxes II, in 398. But that is not the only problem.”( http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=900)

 

 Thus it is clear that Poorpirar was not even aware of the date when Ezra lived and he thought he found something new!  The reliance of Asgharzadeh on Pourpirar is a clear example of the resentment and hatred pan-Turkists chavaunists feel against Iranian civilization and culture.  But given Pourpirar’s unacademic nature, Asgharzadeh is also deconstructed since he uses the faulty statements of Pourpirar.

 

Let us continue.  Asgharzadeh continues quoting Pourpirar and his anti-Semetic rants and conspiracy theories:

“The God of Israel empowers Cyrus to accomplish all the above tasks without Cyrus's knowledge of it. In other words, these prophecies were made long before Cyrus was even born. The accurate realization of these biblical prophecies has led to major arguments among historians. In general terms, those believing in divinity and the sacredness of religious texts regard these prophecies as signs of authenticity of the Old Testament, in that the prophecies have come true exactly the way they were earlier prophesied (Price, 1899, p. 234). On the other hand, there are those such as the Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar (2000,2001a) who cite these narratives as an act of reconstruction of a figure for broader political and cultural projects. These critics argue that the Semites were conscious of historical process and they sought to manipulate it to their advantage in historical and religious texts.

 

Most surprisingly, the Old Testament even talks about the practical aspect of preparing Cyrus for the task ahead:

Then rose up the chief of the fathers of ludah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem. And all they that were about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, beside all that was willingly offered. Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods; Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives, Thirty basins of gold, silver basins of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:5-11.)

Obviously, restoration of the Jewish people to Babylonia and the subduing of nations could not possibly take place without sufficient funding. Thus the Old Testament directs the exiled Jewish people to provide the financial means for the rise of Cyrus, and facilitate the attack of his army on Babylonia. In the Book of Jeremiah, it is clearly expressed that "out of the north" will Cyrus's army come and destroy Babylonia (Jeremiah 50: 1-3, 9-10, 41-42). It is noteworthy that the emphasis here is on "the north." There is no mention of Persia or of Cyrus being the king of Persia. The passage prophesies that some­one will come from the north, with cruel armies and ruthless fighters, and will destroy Babylon. This "north," according to Poorpirar (2000,2001a), cannot be Persia. It must be somewhere in Central Asia and the Steppes of southern Russia from which this cruel force comes. According to this interpretation, the subjugation of Persia takes place after the subduing of Babylonia by Cyrus, not the other way around. The passages just quoted show the extent to which the Old Testament was instrumental in channeling the knowledge about Cyrus, the Achaemenid, and ultimately Persia to the Greeks, Christians, and, by extension, the entire world.”(pg 51)

 

First, it should be mentioned that the pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh try to legitimize lunatics like Pourpirar by constantly using terms to such effect as “there are those like Iranian historian Pourpirar”, “Many historians like Pourpirar and Zehtabi”, “Iranians historians like Pourpirar”.  The funny thing is that no one really takes the conspiracy theories of Pourpirar seriously and he is not a “historian” but just a fictional writer who believes that after Purim, there was not a living being in Iran till the advent of Islam.  Thus Asgharzadeh, burdened by historical and archeological facts that he does not like, must resort to Pourpirar to promote his pan-Turkist anti-Iranian agenda.  It is not suprising that Asgharzadeh quotes Pourpirar (a true anti-semite) “that semites tried to manipulate historical and religious texts to their advantage.  This sort of generalizing semites is no different than what occurred in Nazi Germany. 

 

Now to show the absurdity of Pourpirar’s/Asgharzadeh’s conspiracy theories.  Pourpirar and hence Asgharzadeh believe that Jews paid Cyrus the Great and gave him financial support to liberate Babylon.  Their proof for this conspiracy theory is the book of Jeremiah.  It is interesting that Pourpirar/Asgharzadeh keep claiming that the Old Testament is unreliable, yet whenever it suits them, the book becomes very reliable.  Given the fact that the Old Testament is a religious book, and religious books can be interpreted in variety of ways, it provides a perfect tool for misinterpreting history for lunatics like Pourpirar and their supports like Asgharzadeh.

 

The above passage from Ezra has absolutely nothing to do with a big Jewish conspiracy theory to bring Cyrus the Great to power or as Asgharzadeh says:“preparing Cyrus for the task ahead”.

 

Indeed a simple reading of Chapters I and II and III of the book of Ezra demonstrated that all the events referenced are after Cyrus the Great took control of Babylonia.

 

http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Ezr&chapter=1#n24


Indeed the book of Ezra, written perhaps 200 years after Cyrus the Great, talks about the events after the conquest of Cyrus.  The silver and gold offerings to temple is also an event after the conquest of Cyrus.  There is absolutely no relationship with some jewish conspiracy or Asgharzadeh puts it: “Semites were conscious of historical process and they sought to manipulate it to their advantage in historical and religious texts.”

Asgharzadeh thinks the task ahead is the jewish conspiracy to bring Cyrus to power.  He claims:” Thus the Old Testament directs the exiled Jewish people to provide the financial means for the rise of Cyrus, and facilitate the attack of his army on Babylonia.”.  Where-as the book of Ezra describes events only aftermath of Cyrus’s control of Babylon and has absolutely nothing to do with the prepration of Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon.  No where in the book does it say that Jewish people should provide the financial means in order for Cyrus the Great to conquer Babylonia!!  All these conspiracy theories are made up by the likes of Poorpirar/Asgharzadeh due to their simple hatred of Iranians.  And given that Zionists are not politically popular for the Islamic government of Iran, they want to really say that: “Zionists brought Cyrus the Great to power by providing him financial means”.  In this way, Poorpirar can have a cover in IRI when attacking Iranian history.  By associating everything in Achaemenid Persia with Zionism.  The fact is though that the book of Ezra absolutely says nothing about Jews porivding financial means for the rise of Cyrus!  The likes of such  unacademic and unscholarly statements by Asgharzadeh should not be of surprise, since pan-Turkists Iran-haters like him simply hate everything that is associated with Iran.  Specially Iran’s pre-Islamic past (since there was no Turkic language presence, then Asgharzadeh and other pan-Turkists feel no affinity with Iran’s historical past and thus they simply resent it).

 

The following site has summarized the book of Ezra nicely:

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/ezra.htm#Edict%20of%20king%20Cyrus%20of%20Persia

“
Edict of king Cyrus of Persia (1):
     It was God who “stirred up the spirit” of Cyrus II (1:1) to permit any willing Israelite to return to his land. And it was God who later prompted Darius I (6:14, 22) and Artaxerxes I (7:11-13ff) to decree similarly (9:9).
    Ezra 1:1-4 - Cyrus' decree.


Return of 50,000 Jews with Zerubbabel (2):
    After Nebuchadnezzar, King Cyrus of Persia came to power in Babylon, and he decided to help the Jews to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild the Temple of Yahweh, the God of Israel.
    So, 49,897 Jews came with Zerubbabel from Babylon to Jerusalem in 536 BC, 70 years after the captivity, as prophesied by Jeremiah 29:10 (in the year 606 BC, Nebuchadnezzar brought the first group of Israelites captives to Babylon, in the year 586 BC the third and last group was deported).
    Governor Zerubbabel was a grandson of Jehoiachin, one of the last Davidic kings of Judah.
    The Israelites are mostly "Jews", from the tribe of Judah, and some from the tribe of Benjamin... the others Israelites are the "ten lost tribes of Israel" never mentioned again in the Bible. In the Book of Esther are called specifically "Jews"  (Est.2:5, 4:3, 8:16, 10:3)...   Zechariah 8:23 and Esther are the only other books of the Old Testament to mention the name "Jew".
    The Message is the re-establishment of the exiles as God's People in Jerusalem and Judea gradually developed as they returned in waves under the leadership of Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemaiah, as God providentially made for them through the Persian rulers, as the Lord enable them to rebuild the altar, the temple and Jerusalem, and as the people continually repented of their evil in order to follow God's Law.
 

Rebuilding of Altar and Temple (3-4):
    Ezra lays stress on the theme of God’s covenant with his people, reflected especially in the Lord’s special presence in the temple and Israel’s special access to him through God-appointed sacrifice. Thus the rebuilding of the altar and the temple (Ezra 3-6), and the offering of sacrifices, receives considerable attention in Ezra. So also the joy and exuberance of the people (3:10-13; 6:22).
    They first rebuild the Altar and offered sacrifices... then the Temple was rebuilt with a height of 90 ft. and a width of 90 ft., under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua... in spite of bitter opposition from local officials and neighboring peoples.
    This Second Temple had not the splendor and beauty of the one of Solomon... but Herod lately enlarged it... and it was the Temple Jesus attended.
     These events took place in  21 years.

“

Note there is no passage that Jews financially helped Cyrus’s rise!!  Anything with regards to finance has to do with the period of Cyrus controlling Babylon and the building of the temple. 

So the book of Ezra has been misused by Pourpirar.  Next Asgharzadeh claims:” In the Book of Jeremiah, it is clearly expressed that "out of the north" will Cyrus's army come and destroy Babylonia (Jeremiah 50: 1-3, 9-10, 41-42).”

 

Actually in the book of Jeremiah and the above passage, the army of Cyrus is not mentioned even once!  Neither is the Persian empire.  So nothing is clearly expressed! As Agharzadeh claims.  Indeed, it is amazing that all of the sudden Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar become interpreters of the bible.  It should be mentioned that the book of Jeremiah like the book if Isiah is a book of prophecy.  It’s historical accuracy is left for scholars.  But what is important is the hypocratic methodology used by Poorpirar/Asgharzadeh.  For Asgharzadeh, the book of Isaiah is unreliable.  Yet, we are to believe his “clearly expressed” interpretation of the book Jeremiah!  Here is the passage from the book of Jeremiah.  As the readers can see neither Cyrus or Persia is mentioned.  The passage is quoted below with the prophetic and mythical interpretations should not be considered history necessarily.  Cyrus or Persia are not mentioned.  Furthermore in the bible it is explicit that Cyrus came from Persia as the book of Ezra has mentioned and we shall show more.

 

50:1 The word that Yahweh spoke concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by Jeremiah the prophet.  50:2 Declare among the nations and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and don’t conceal: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is disappointed, Merodach is dismayed; her images are disappointed, her idols are dismayed.  50:3 For out of the north there comes up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they are fled, they are gone, both man and animal. 50:4 In those days, and in that time, says Yahweh, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together; they shall go on their way weeping, and shall seek Yahweh their God. 50:5 They shall inquire concerning Zion with their faces turned toward it, saying, Come, and join yourselves to Yahweh in an everlasting covenant that shall not be forgotten.  50:6 My people have been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from mountain to hill; they have forgotten their resting place. 50:7 All who found them have devoured them; and their adversaries said, We are not guilty, because they have sinned against Yahweh, the habitation of righteousness, even Yahweh, the hope of their fathers. 50:8 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as the male goats before the flocks. 50:9 For, behold, I will stir up and cause to come up against Babylon a company of great nations from the north country; and they shall set themselves in array against her; from there she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of an expert mighty man; none shall return in vain.  50:10 Chaldea shall be a prey: all who prey on her shall be satisfied, says Yahweh.  50:11 Because you are glad, because you rejoice, O you who plunder my heritage, because you are wanton as a heifer that treads out the grain, and neigh as strong horses;  50:12 your mother shall be utterly disappointed; she who bore you shall be confounded: behold, she shall be the least of the nations, a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert.  50:13 Because of the wrath of Yahweh she shall not be inhabited, but she shall be wholly desolate: everyone who goes by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues.  50:14 Set yourselves in array against Babylon all around, all you who bend the bow; shoot at her, spare no arrows: for she has sinned against Yahweh.  50:15 Shout against her all around: she has submitted herself; her bulwarks are fallen, her walls are thrown down; for it is the vengeance of Yahweh: take vengeance on her; as she has done, do to her.  50:16 Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him who handles the sickle in the time of harvest: for fear of the oppressing sword they shall turn everyone to his people, and they shall flee everyone to his own land.  50:17 Israel is a hunted sheep; the lions have driven him away: first, the king of Assyria devoured him; and now at last Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has broken his bones.  50:18 Therefore thus says Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel: Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria.  50:19 I will bring Israel again to his pasture, and he shall feed on Carmel and Bashan, and his soul shall be satisfied on the hills of Ephraim and in Gilead.  50:20 In those days, and in that time, says Yahweh, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I leave as a remnant.  50:21 Go up against the land of Merathaim, even against it, and against the inhabitants of Pekod: kill and utterly destroy after them, says Yahweh, and do according to all that I have commanded you.  50:22 A sound of battle is in the land, and of great destruction.  50:23 How is the hammer of the whole earth cut apart and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!  50:24 I have laid a snare for you, and you are also taken, Babylon, and you weren’t aware: you are found, and also caught, because you have striven against Yahweh.  50:25 Yahweh has opened his armory, and has brought forth the weapons of his indignation; for the Lord, Yahweh of Armies, has a work to do in the land of the Chaldeans.  50:26 Come against her from the utmost border; open her storehouses; cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly; let nothing of her be left.  50:27 Kill all her bulls; let them go down to the slaughter: woe to them! for their day has come, the time of their visitation.  50:28 The voice of those who flee and escape out of the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of Yahweh our God, the vengeance of his temple.  50:29 Call together the archers against Babylon, all those who bend the bow; encamp against her all around; let none of it escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she has done, do to her; for she has been proud against Yahweh, against the Holy One of Israel.  50:30 Therefore her young men will fall in her streets, and all her men of war will be brought to silence in that day, says Yahweh.  50:31 Behold, I am against you, you proud one, says the Lord, Yahweh of Armies; for your day has come, the time that I will visit you.  50:32 The proud one shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up; and I will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all who are around him.  50:33 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: The children of Israel and the children of Judah are oppressed together; and all who took them captive hold them fast; they refuse to let them go.  50:34 Their Redeemer is strong; Yahweh of Armies is his name: he will thoroughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the earth, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon.  50:35 A sword is on the Chaldeans, says Yahweh, and on the inhabitants of Babylon, and on her princes, and on her wise men.  50:36 A sword is on the boasters, and they shall become fools; a sword is on her mighty men, and they shall be dismayed.  50:37 A sword is on their horses, and on their chariots, and on all the mixed people who are in the midst of her; and they shall become as women: a sword is on her treasures, and they shall be robbed.  50:38 A drought is on her waters, and they shall be dried up; for it is a land of engraved images, and they are mad over idols.  50:39 Therefore the wild animals of the desert with the wolves shall dwell there, and the ostriches shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited forever; neither shall it be lived in from generation to generation.  50:40 As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbor cities of it, says Yahweh, so shall no man dwell there, neither shall any son of man live therein.  50:41 Behold, a people comes from the north; and a great nation and many kings shall be stirred up from the uttermost parts of the earth.  50:42 They lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roars like the sea; and they ride on horses, everyone set in array, as a man to the battle, against you, daughter of Babylon. 50:43 The king of Babylon has heard the news of them, and his hands wax feeble: anguish has taken hold of him, and pangs as of a woman in travail. 50:44 Behold, the enemy shall come up like a lion from the pride of the Jordan against the strong habitation: for I will suddenly make them run away from it; and whoever is chosen, him will I appoint over it: for who is like me? and who will appoint me a time? and who is the shepherd who can stand before me?  50:45 Therefore hear the counsel of Yahweh, that he has taken against Babylon; and his purposes, that he has purposed against the land of the Chaldeans: Surely they shall drag them away, even the little ones of the flock; surely he shall make their habitation desolate over them.  50:46 At the noise of the taking of Babylon the earth trembles, and the cry is heard among the nations.

 

Thus the passage:” Behold, a people comes from the north; and a great nation and many kings shall be stirred up from the uttermost parts of the earth.” (from the book Jeremiah written before Cyrus the Great) is taken by Pourpirar that Cyrus the Great will march from North (which he believes it is Khazaria and Slavia!) and will conquer Babylon.  Where-as the book of Ezra, written long after Darius, clearly states that Cyrus the Great is from Persia.  And Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar acknowledge that Persia existed at least during the time of Darius I.  Thus the above passage from Jeremiah (assuming it is reliable historical passage) does not pertain to Cyrus the Great.  So Asgharzadeh even decides that the book of Jeremiah, which does not talk about Cyrus, is authentic, but the book of Ezra and Isaiah are not.  The reason is that Ezra clearly states Cyrus is from Persia and Isaiah also states it too.  Also further interpretation of Isaiah shows this as well: “Listen to me in silence, O coastlands; let the peoples renew their strength; let them approach, then let them speak;   let us together draw near for judgement. Who has roused a victor from the east,    summoned him to his service?” (Isaiah 41 -2) and “calling a bird of prey from the east, the man for my purpose from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;” (Isaiah 41 -2).  Thus it is not the semites that manipulate history, but it is Asgharzadeh and Poorpirar that misinterpret and distort the bible in order to show that Cyrus was not from Iran!

 

Pourpirar claims the Achaemenids destroyed Sumerians, Elam,Assyria,Manana, Lulubi, Urartu, Akkadians, Kassites!  In actuality, hundreds of years prior to Achaemenids (if not thousands), Summerians were already gone.  Manna and Lulubi was incorporated by Medes.  Urartu did not exist around the Achaemenid era.  Akkadians to did not exist around the Median and Achaemenid era.  Assyria was incorporated by the Babylonians and Medes.  As shown above, the Elamite civilization was flourishing during the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid era and its existence is extinguished during post-Sassanid era.  There are more than enough sufficient evidence that Babylon was flourishing during the Achaemenid era. 

 

 

 

See for example the book Leonard King (History of Babylon) also translated into Persian:

لئونارد كينگ: «تاريخ بابل»، ترجمه‌ي رقيه بهزادي، انتشارات علمي و فرهنگي، 1378، ص 275 و 386

 

 

Or for example Professor. Guillaume Cardasci states about Cyrus and his entrance to Babylon:

“BABYLON under the Achaemenids. The economic and cultural history of Babylon under Persian rule matched the vicissitudes of its political life. Its citizens welcomed the first Achaemenids as liberators. Having been deeply offended by the sacrilegious innovations of Nabonidus, they opened its gates in 538 B.C. to Cyrus, who had already won Kubaru (Gobryas), the Babylonian governor of Gutium, over to his side (Annals of Nabonidus III, 15-20, in S. Smith, ed., Babylonian Historical Texts, London, 1924, pp. 98-123; Cylinder of Cyrus, in R. W. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, Oxford, 1912, pp. 380-84; W. Eilers in Festgabe deutscher Iranisten zur 2500 Jahrfeier Irans, Stuttgart, 1971, pp. 156-66; Xenophon, Cyropaedia 7.5.26-30). With the god Marduk's blessing, the Persian king sent the foreign gods imported by the fallen ruler back to their home towns.”

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “BABYLON under the Achaemenids”, G. Cardasci, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f3a070.html)

 

Professor. Muhammad A. Dandamayev also states:

“About 6,000 legal, economic, and administrative documents from Babylonian private and temple archives of the Achaemenid period have so far been published. They are written on clay tablets in the late-Babylonian dialect of Akkadian. These documents include promissory notes; mortgages; contracts for the sale and lease of land and houses; receipts for tax payments; records of court proceedings; and so on, including about 500 official and private letters. The majority of these texts belong to the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius I (qq.v.; 539-486 B.C.E.). About two dozen of them were drafted in Ecbatana, Persepolis, Humadeshu (in the vicinity of Persepolis), Susa, and other cities of western and southwestern Iran. They represent transactions by Babylonians who came to Persia as merchants and businessmen or, in a few instances, had settled there.

From the archives of the Eanna temple in Uruk and the Ebabbar temple in Sippar, both in Mesopotamia, there is especially abundant information about the economy and social institutions of Babylonia. Among private archives the most important are those of the Egibi, Murashû, and several other business houses. Most of the Egibi documents were drafted in the vicinity of Babylon, but some were composed in other cities, including Ecbatana, where the firm was engaged in business (Dandamaev, pp. 12-22). The Murashû documents come mainly from the region of Nippur, but a certain number were composed in Babylon, Susa, and other cities. They constitute the largest single source for the economic history of Babylonia in the second half of the 5th century B.C.E. and for changes introduced by the Achaemenid administration into policies on property and the system of land tenure. They also provide extensive information on Persian and other Iranian soldiers and officials settled around Nippur (Stolper, pp. 1, 23-24).

Various documents written in Egyptian demotic on papyrus have been preserved from Achaemenid Egypt. Among them the Ryland Papyri comprise a number of documents of various periods, one of which, the "petition of Petesi," concerns the illegal appropriation of property by priests in the early Achaemenid period. It provides valuable insight into the Egyptian legal system. Cambyses' decree limiting the property of Egyptian temples and Darius I's edict codifying Egyptian laws are also of great importance. The correspondence of local priests with Pherendates, satrap of Egypt under Darius I, provides information on the administrative system of the country. Other demotic documents include leases for fields and livestock, the sales of slaves, hiring of labor, records of self-sale, and the like (Seidl, pp. 51-83; Cruz-Uribe, pp. 103-11).

About 200 Aramaic documents are known from Egypt. They include marriage contracts, promissory notes, leases for land, and other business documents. Some also contain information on Persian administrative policies in Egypt. All these texts are written on papyrus. Thirteen letters of Arshama (q.v.), satrap of Egypt in the second half of the 5th century B.C.E., contain instructions for management of the estates of Persian nobles in Egypt. They are written on leather. Finally, Aramaic documents from the Achaemenid province of Samaria include private documents (marriage contracts, manumission of slaves, etc.) drafted between 375 and 335 B.C.E. (Porten and Yardeni).

Bibliography: E. Cruz-Uribe, Saite and Persian Demotic Cattle Documents. A Study in Legal Forms and Principles in Ancient Egypt, American Studies in Papyrology 26, Chico, Calif., 1985. M. A. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia from Nabo-polassar to Alexander II of Macedonia, DeKalb, Ill., 1984. B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, 3 vols., Jerusalem, 1986-93. E. Seidl, Ägyptische Rechtsgeschichte der Saiten- und Perserzeit, Glückstadt, Germany, 1968. M. W. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia, Leiden, 1985.”

 

The overall flourishing of Babylon in the Achaemenid era shows a positive treatment of Babylonians by the Achaemenids.  With the possible exception of a brief period Xerxes, the Achaemenid period in Babylon is very positive.

 

And as shown above, Alireza Asgharzadeh minsinterprets distorts and manipulates the bible to suit his pan-Turkist ethnic agenda.  Asgharzadeh continues with his hatred of Iran’s ancient legacy:” Notwithstanding the positive image of Cyrus projected through the Old Testament, many historians and scholars continue to emphasize Cyrus's negative, "bloodthirsty," and anti-humane character (Zehtabi, 1999; Poorpirar, 2000, 2001a, 2002-2005). Poorpirar argues that Cyrus was glorified by the Old Testament because he was, in effect, created and financed by the Jews to overthrow the rulers of Babylonia and return the Jews to Jerusalem. Poorpirar (2002-2005) vehemently rejects the idea that Cyrus was a Persian king, arguing instead that he was a warlord belonging to the Khazar and Slavic tribes of the north.”

 

Asgharzadeh repeats the false phrase “many historians” and then he is stuck with two hysterians Poorpirar and Zehtabi who’s mumbo-jumb has been interregoated and exposed in the beginning of this article.  Also the funny thing is the theory that Cyrus was created and financied by Jews!  All based on a passage from Jeremiah (written allegedly before Cyrus) which has nothing to do with Cyrus the Great and does not mention Cyrus.  The funniest portion is that Cyrus belonged to the Khazar tribes.  I guess if that was the case, Cyrus would be praised heavily by the pan-Turkists. 

 

Asgharzadeh then continues his anti-Iranian rant against Cyrus the Great:

The Greek historian Herodotus's account of Cyrus's death also serves to confirm the idea that Cyrus was not as friendly, humane, and passionate a figure as the dominant literature makes him out to be. 

According to Herodotus, when Cyrus intends to capture the lands of Massagetai north of the Araz (Araxes) River, Tomyris, the queen of Massagetai advises him to reconsider such a decision and return back to his lands without any bloodshed… Not surprisingly, the Persian sources glorifying Cyrus's life and achievements never mention the way he dies at die hand of Queen Tomyris. They cite Herodotus's narratives to validate various aspects of Cyrus's life, but when it comes to this important passage about his death, they all but forget to mention it, replacing Herodotus's account of Cyrus's death with various colorful narratives of their own imagination.

 

 

 

Here Asgharzadeh has not only mistaken geography and has mistaken the river Aras (there is no such word as Araz in any old literature) with the Araxes of Herodotus which is confirmed by all historians to be Oxus.  But before getting involved in the issue of the Iranian tribe of Massagetati, Tomyris and Oxus, we should mention that Herodotus clearly states:

“During all the reign of Cyrus, and afterwards when Cambyses ruled, there were no fixed tributes, but the nations severally brought gifts to the king..  On account of this and other like doings, the Persians say that Darius was a huckster, Cambyses a master, and Cyrus a father; for Darius looked to making a gain in everything; Cambyses was harsh and reckless; while Cyrus was gentle, and procured them all manner of goods.”(Herodotus, 3.89)


Indeed the generosity of Cyrus the Great is known not only through the Old Testament and the Cyrus Cylinder, but is common place among great historians and scholars of antiquity and modern times.  (Of course we disregard the opinions of Hysterians like Poorpirar/Zehtabi who have no knowledge of ancient languages, lack formal historical training and have not published any reliable papers in any reliable journals).

According to Diodorus of Sicility, leaving around 30-60 B.C.:

 

How did Cyrus, who was but a private man, gain the sovereignty of All Asia, but his courtesy and kindness to those that he had subdued?  He did not only forbear the executor cruelty upon king Croseus , but heaped many favors pon him.  And such was his practice towards other kings and people, that his mercy and lenity being thereon published in every place, all the inhabitants of Asia flocked to him , and strove to be his confederates.  (Diodorus,Translated by George
Booth, Published 1814 Printed by W. MDowall for J. Davis, Digitized 2005.  pg 505-506)

 

Plato example states:


There was a time when the Persians had more of the state which is a mean between slavery and freedom. In the reign of Cyrus they were freemen and also lords of many others: the rulers gave a share of freedom to the subjects, and being treated as equals, the soldiers were on better terms with their generals, and showed themselves more ready in the hour of danger. And if there was any wise man among them, who was able to give good counsel, he imparted his wisdom to the public; for the king was not jealous, but allowed him full liberty of speech, and gave honour to those who could advise him in any matter. And the nation waxed in all respects, because there was freedom and friendship and communion of mind among them.(http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.3.iii.html)

 

 

 

Indeed the praise of Cyrus the Great among ancient and modern historians and writers is numerous and here we shall show some of them in Persian.

 


هانری برٌ دانشمند فرانسوی در کتاب تمدن ایران باستان می‌نویسد:
«این پادشاه بزرگ برعکس سلاطین قسی‌القب و ظالم بابل و آسور بسیار عادل و رحیم و مهربان بود زیرا اخلاق روح ایرانی اساسش تعلیمات زردشت بوده. به همین سبب بود که شاهنشاهان هخامنشی خود را مظهر صفات (خشترا) میشمردند و همه قوا و اقتدار خود را از خدواند دانسته و آنرا برای خیر بشر و آسایش و سعادت جامعه انسان صرف می‌کردند»
--------------
«آخیلوس» هماورد ایرانیان در نبرد ماراتون، درباره‌ی كورش می‌نویسد: «او مردی خوشبخت بود، صلح را برای مردمان‌اش آورد… خدایان دشمن او نبودند؛ چون كه او معقول و متعادل بود»
-------------------------
کورش در تورات :
خداوند درباره کورش می گوید که او شبان من است و هر چه او کند آن است که من خواسته ام . منم ( خداوند ) که او ( کورش ) را از جانب مشرق بر انگیختم تا عدالت را روی زمین برقرار کند . من امتها را تسلیم وی میکنم و او را بر پادشاهان سروری میبخشم و ایشان را مثل غبار به شمشیر وی و مانند کاهی که پراکنده شود به کمال او تسلیم می کنم . من کورش را به عدالت بر انگیختم و تمامی راهها را در پیش رویش استوار خواهم ساخت . منم که شاهین خود را ( کورش ) را از جانب مشرق فرا خواندم و دوران عدالت را نزدیک آوردم . خداوند کورش را برگزید و فرماندار جهانش کرده است . بازوی او را بر کلدانیها فرو خواهد آورد و راه او را همجه هموار خواهد ساخت . در سال اول سلطنت کورش پادشاه پارس کلام خدا کامل شد . خداوند روح کورش پادشاه فارس را برانگیخت تا در تمامی سرزمینها خود فرمانی صادر کند که ( یهوه ) خدای آسمانها تمام ممالک زمین را بر من داده است و امر داده است خانه برای او در اورشلیم بنا کنم .
----------------------------
سخنان ایسکیلوس
«کوروش فهرمان بختیار، چون به قدرت رسید، میان اقوام برادر صلح برقرار کرد، و سپس لودیا و فروگیا را مخسر خود ساخت، و بر نیروی سراسر تسلط یافت. آسمان با او سرکین نداشت چون فرزانه بود»

Aesschylus, Persae, 768-82

---------------------

افلاطون که در فهرست بزرگترین مردمان گذشت روزگاران است می‌فرماید:
«هنگام پادشاهی کوروش٬ ایرانیان آزادی داشتند و همه مردان آزاد بودند و سرور و فرمانروای بسیاری از مردمان دیگر نیز بودند. فرمانروایان رعایای خود را در آزادی سهیم کرده بودند ؛ چون سربازان و سرداران همه را به یک چشم می‌دیدند و با همه به برابری رفتار می‌کردند٬ سربازان در موقع خطر آماده‌ی جانفشانی بودند٬ و در جنگ با جان میکوشیدند. اگر در میان ایرانیان مرد خدردمندی بود که میتوانست اندرزی بدهد که مردمان را سودمند باشد٬ چنان میکردند که همه‌ی مردم از خردمندی او استفاده کنند٬ پادشاه بر کسی حسد نمی‌ورزید اما بهمه آزادی میداد تا آنچه می‌خواهند بگویند٬ و آنکس را که اندرز بهتر میداد ورای بهتر می‌نهاد٬ گرامی‌تر می‌داشت. این بود که کشور از هر لحاظ پیشرفت کرد و بزرگ شد٬ زیرا افراد آزادی داشتند٬ و در دمیان آنان محبت بود و نسبت بهم٬ حس خویشاوندی می‌کردند»

افلاطون٬ قطعه‌ای از کتاب سوم قوانین ؛ ترجمه‌ی این فقره از دکتر م. صناعی است: «نظر افلاطون در باره‌ی بزرگی و تباهی خاندان هخامنشیان»٬ مجله سخن٬ دوره‌‌ی یازدهم شماره ۱۲ (نورو ۱۳۴۰) ٬ ص ۱۲۸۱ تا ۱۲۸۵)


برگردان این گفت زیبای افلاطون در زبان انگلیسی:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.3.iii.html
There was a time when the Persians had more of the state which is a mean between slavery and freedom. In the reign of Cyrus they were freemen and also lords of many others: the rulers gave a share of freedom to the subjects, and being treated as equals, the soldiers were on better terms with their generals, and showed themselves more ready in the hour of danger. And if there was any wise man among them, who was able to give good counsel, he imparted his wisdom to the public; for the king was not jealous, but allowed him full liberty of speech, and gave honour to those who could advise him in any matter. And the nation waxed in all respects, because there was freedom and friendship and communion of mind among them.
----------------

دیودروس:

«کورش٬ پسر کمبوجیه و ماندانه دختر پادشاه ماد٬ در دلاوری و کارآئی خردمندانه و دیگر فرزانگیها سرآمد مردم روزگار خود گشت٬ زیرا پدرش او را شاهانه پرورده بود٬ و برای رسیدن به بزرگترین هدفها و دستیابی به بهترین پایگاهها تشویقش کرده بود. از همان آغاز کارش٬ پیدا بود که به انجام کارهای بزرگ کامیاب خواهد گشت زیرا فرزانگی و کارآئیش برای کسی چنان جوان و تازه پای بمیدان نهاده٬ شگفت‌ آور می‌‌نمود.

همه گفته‌اند که کورش نه تنها در جنگ دلاور و بی‌باک بود٬ بلکه در رفتار با زیردستانش میانه رو و پاک‌اندیش و انسان‌‌دوست بود٬ و از این جهت ایرانیان او را «پدر» می‌خواندند»

Diodorus Siculus, IX, 22, 24

درباره‌ی دیودروس :

او یک تاریخ‌نگار اهل جزیره‌ی سیسیلی است که ۲۱ سال پیش از زایش مسیح(ع) از جهان رخ برکشید. او کتابی به نام «تاریخ جهان» نوشت در ۴۰ جلد که امروز حدود ده جلد از آنها به ما رسیده.
-----------------------------------------
گزنفون گوید:

روزی در اندیشه افتادم که به راز کامیابی فرمانروایان و دولتها، و علتهای فراز و نشیب ملتها و حکومتها و چگونگی رفتار رهبران و کردار زیردستان و مهربانی و جانفشانی کسان نسبت به یکدیگر ، پی ببرم; و بدین نتیجه رسیدم که برای انسان بسیار آسانتر است که بر جانوران فرمان راند تا بر آدمیان. اما هنگامیکه بیاد آوردم که چگونه یکتن، یعنی کورش پارسی، بود که بسیاری از آدمیان و شهرها و ملتها را فرمانبردار خود کرد، بناچار گمان خود را دیگرگون کردم، و بر آنم که حکومت بر انسانها نه کاری ناشدنی است، و نه حتی دشوار، بشرط آنکه بخردانه و با هوشمندی در پی حکومت کردن برآئیم.

باری، میدانیم که مردمان بدلخواه خود کورش را فرمان بردند. با آنکه گروهی از آنان از او چندان دور بودند که مسافت میانشان را چندروز، یا حتی چند ماه، می بایست طی کرد، و بسیاری از آنان هرگزش ندیده بودند، و برای بسیاری امیدی هم نمیرفت که روزی بدیدارش رسند، با اینهمه همگان او را از صمیم قلب بندگی میکردند.

این وضع جای شگفتی ندارد، زیرا که وی با شاهان دیگر - چه آنان که جانشین پدر شده‌اند و پادشاهی را بمیراث برده‌اند، و چه آنان که با کوشش و تلاش و تخشائی خود٬ بر تاج و تخت دست یافته‌اند - تفاوت بسیار داشت. در حالیكه تاجوران دیگر اگر بتوانند بر كشور خود حكومتی پایدار و نیرومند داشته باشند٬ خرسند خواهند بود٬ و نمیتوانند بر همسایگان دست یابند٬ كورش ملتهای فراوانی از آسیا و اروپا و آفریقا را پیرو و فرمانبردار خود كرد٬ و بزرگترین شاهنشاهی تاریخ را بنیاد گذارد.

این فرمانبرداران از قومهای گوناگون و با زبان و آداب و آئینهای متفاوت بودند٬ ولی همه او را میخواستند٬ و از او باك داشتند٬ و یار ایشان نبود كه در برابرش در ایستند. اما همواره آرزومند بودند كه خدمتش كنند٬ و شادمانش دارند٬ و بوسیله‌ی اندرزها و رفتار خردمندانه‌اش راهنمائی شوند. اگر از زادگاهش آغاز كنیم٬ به هر سوئی٬ به خاور و یا باختر٬ به شمال و یا جنوب٬ كه برویم٬ به اندازه‌ی قبیله‌هائی كه زیر فرمان آورده بود٬ برمیخوریم كه مسافرت در سرزمین همه‌ی آنان را بسیار دشوار می‌یابیم. و ما از آنجا كه این بزرگمرد را در خور همه گونه ستایش می‌دانیم٬ درباره‌ی تبار و خاندانش٬ زایش و پرورشش٬ و گوهرها و هنرهای خدا دادیش٬ و فرهنگ و آموخته‌هایش كه اینهمه او را در فرمانروائی كردن بر مردمان كامیابی داده بود - پژوهش‌ها كرده‌ایم. و بنابراین میكوشیم كه آنچه را درباره‌اش دریافته‌ایم٬ و یا درست می‌دانیم٬ بازگو كنیم.


کورش پسر کمبوجیه پادشاه پارس و ماندانه شاهدخت ماد بود. ایرانیان تا به امروز (یعنی روزگار گزنفون) در داستانها و آوازهائی که به یاد او میسرایند و میخوانند، میگویند که وی زیباترین، بخشنده‌ترین ودریادلترین مردان بود و بزرگترین هواخواه فرهنگ و آموختن، و بلند پروازترین جوانان بشمار میرفت; و از این جهت برای انگیختن ستایش کسانس، به همه گونه سختی تن در میداد، و همه گونه خطری را پیشواز میکرد. وی به آئین نیکوی پارسی که جوانان را کاری، دوراندیش، وفادار و زیرک و بافرهنگ می‌سازد-بار آمد; در دوازده سالگی به دربار پدر بزرگش رفت، و بزودی آئین‌های شاهی را به نیکوئی فراگرفت، و دلیریها نمود، و بخشندگیها، زیرکیها و کارهای شاهانه‌ی بسیار از او سرزد، چنانکه «مادها او را میستودند و در داستانها و آوازها یادش میکردند»

برگرفته از:
Xenophon, Cyropaedia, I, 2:1
برگردان به فارسی:
دکتر شاپور شهبازی

آنگاه گزنفون از زندگی کورش سخن میراند، و بارها گذشت و جوانمردی، وفاداری و فداکاری، هنر سپهبدی وجهانداری، خویشتن‌داری و خردمندی، بلند‌پروازی و تیزهوشی، شکوهمندی و پهلوانی او را میستاد‌; و از کارهای برجسته‌اش در بزم و رزم، در خانه و سفر، در شکار و در بیابان، و در دشت و کوهسار، و از رفتارش با دوستان و همراهان، با خویشاوندان و بیگانگان، با دشمنان توانا و نگون‌بخت، یاد میکند، و همواره زبان به ستایشش میگشاید. گزنفن چنان شیفته‌ی کورش میشود که او را برترین مرد تاریخ می‌داند، و می‌افزاید که پارسیانش او را پدر میخواندند، و دیگران خداوندگارش(یعنی به چم برترین سرور و نه آفریدگار) مینامیدند ;
و داوری میکند که : چون او کسی شایسه‌تر فرمانروائی، از مادر زائیده نشده است.
------------------------

گزیده‌هایی از:
Sir Percy Sykes, History Persian, Vol. I , 3rd Edition, 1930, London

داوری سایکس

«چنان می‌نماید که زیبائی مردانه و دلاوری و پهلوانی و تلاش‌های او در همه‌ی دوره زندگیش آشکار بوده است٬ هیچگاه خوش‌گذرانی و تن آسائی-دو بلائی که دچار بسیاری از بزرگان جهان بوده- بمردانگی او گزندی نرسانید. در اداره کننده بودن او جای گمان است٬ چه در آن روزگاران این هنر چند اقبالی نمی‌یافته٬ اما کاردانی و تدبیر و خوش‌رفتاری و مهربانی او مهشود است٬ و از این رو برخلاف رفتار جهانگیران پیشین بر مردمان٬ ناگوار و سخت نبوده است. جوانمردی و انسان‌دوستی‌اش در سرحد کمال بود٬ کاسان‌دانه دختر فرناسپه‌ی هخامنشی را بهمسری در پذیرفت٬ و چون وی در گذشت بر سوگ او زاری فراوان کرد. رفتار خوش و نیکویش نیز از غرور و خودپرستی دور بود. مردم را بخوبی می‌پذیرفت٬ و حال آنکه شاهان پیشین بخصوص از باردادن به مردم پرهیز میکردند و کسی راه نمیدادند»


«خوش زبانی او از پاسخی که در داستان رقص ماهیان به یونانیان داده است آشکار است.. مطالب کتاب مقدس (تورات) و نوشته‌های یونانی و سنتهای ایرانی همه همداستانند که کورش باستی سزاوار لقب «بزرگ» بوده است. مردم او را دوست میداشتند و «پدر» میخواندند. ما نیز میتوانیم بدان ببالیم که نخستین مرد بزرگ آریائی {اینجا اندیشه‌اش هندواروپایی است زیرا تنها شاخه‌ی هندوایرانی گروه هندواروپایی است که آریائی خوانده می‌شود} که سرگذشت بر تاریخ روشن است٬ صفاتی چنان عالی و درخشان داشته است.»

باز هم گزیده‌هایی از:
Sir Percy Sykes, History Persian, Vol. I , 3rd Edition, 1930, London

در هنگاه توصیف آرامگاه کورش می نویسد:

«من خود سه بار این آرامگاه را دیدار کرده‌ام ، و توانسته‌ام اندک تعمیری نیز در آنجا بکنم، و در هر سه بار این نکته را یادآورده شده ام که زیارت آمارگاه اصلی کورش، پادشاه بزرگ و شاهنشاه جهان، امتیاز کوچکی نیست و من بسی خوشبخت بوده‌ام که بچنین افتخاری دست یافته‌ام. براستی من در گمانم که آیا برای ما مردم آریائی (هندواروپایی) هیچ بنای دیگری هست که از آرامگاه بنیاد گذار دولت پارس و ایران.. ارجمندتر و مهمتر باشد.»


-------------------------------


ادوارد می‌یر (Edwar Meyer) مورخ نامی آلمانی و نویسنده‌ی تاریخ باستان(Geschichte des Alterturms) ٬ در مقاله‌ای کورش را بدینگونه میستاید: « او که در آغاز پادشاه‌ قوم ناشناخته‌ای بود٬ در اندک زمانی شاهنشاهی فراخی پی‌ریخت که از رود سند و آمودریا (جیحون) تا دریای اژه و مرز هند گسترش داشت. این کار شگرف نشان میدهد که وی سپهبد و کشوردار بزرگی بوده‌ است. از منش او آزادگی میبارد٬ رفتار جوانمردانه و مردم پسندانه‌ای که به از پای افتادگان می‌نمود٬ او را بی‌مانند می‌سازد. وی هرگز شهری را به ویرانی نکشید٬ و شاه تارخ باخته‌ای را به دژخیم نسپرد. در بابل٬ همچون پادشاهی قانونی و قانونگزار رفتار کرد. پارسیان سربلندانه از وی بعنوان پدر یاد می‌کردند٬ و یونایان و دشمنان دیگر٬ به بزرگی او سر کرنش فرود می‌آوردند. بنابراین آفرین و ستایشی که گزنفن با برگزیدنش بعنوان قهرمان کتاب خود٬ درباره‌اش روا داشت٬ سزا و بجا بود»

----------------------------

ویلیام دورانت William Durant مورخ و فیلسوف نامی آمریکائی کورش را بدینگونه میستاید:

بخش یک:

«کوروش یکی از کسانی بود که گویا برای فرمانروائی آفریده شده‌اند، و بگفته‌ی امرسون Emerson همه‌ی مردم از تاجگذاری ایشان شاد میشوند. روح شاهانه داشت و شاهانه بکار برمی‌خاست; در اداره‌ی امور بهمانگونه شاستگی داشت که در کشور گشائیهای حیرت انگیر خود چنین بود; با شکست خوردگان به بزرگواری رفتار میکرد، و نسبت بدشمنان سابق خود مهربانی میکرد پس مایه‌‌ی شگفتی نیست که یونانیان درباره‌ی وی داستانهای بیشمار نوشته و او را بزرگترین پهلوان جهان پیش از اسکندر دانسته باشند.

..آنچه به یقین میتوان گفت اینست که کوروش زیبا و خوش‌اندم بود؛ چه ایرانیان تا آخرین روزهای دوره‌ی هنر باستانی خویش به وی همچون نمونه‌ی زیبایی اندام مینگریسته اند؛ دیگر اینکه وی بنیانگزار سلسله‌ی هخامنشی یا سلسله‌ی «شاهان بزرگ» است که نامدارترین دوره‌ی تاریخ ایران بر آن سرزمین سلطنت میکرده‌اند. دیگر آنکه کوروش سربازان مادی و پارسی را چنان منظم ساخت که بصورت ارتش شکست ناپذیری در آمد٬ و بر سادریس و بابل مسلط شد٬ و فرمانروائی اقوام سامی را بر مغرب آسیا چنان پایان داد که تا هزار سال ژس از آن دیگر نتوانستند دولت و حکومتی بسازند؛ تمام کشورهائی را که ژیش از وی در تخت تسلط آشور و بابل و لودیا و آسیای صغیر بود ضمیمه‌ی ایران ساخت٬ و از مجموع آنها یک دولت شاهنشاهی ایجاد کرد که بزرگترین سازمان سیاسی پیش از دولت روم قدیم و یکی از خوش اداورترین همه‌ی دوره‌های تاریخی بشمار میرود

آنچه از داستان‌های یونانی برمی‌آید٬ كوروش از آن كشور گشایانی بوده است كه بیش از هر كشورگشای دیگر او را دوست می‌داشته‌اند٬ و پایه‌های سلطنت خود را بر بخشندگی و خوی نیكوی نیكو قرار داده بود. دشمنان وی از نرمی و گذشت او آگاه بودند٬ و بهمین جهت در جنگ با كورش مانند كسی نبودند كه با نیروی نومیدی میجنگد و میداند چاره‌ای نیست جز آنكه بكشد یا خود كشته شود. پیش از این-بنابر روایت هرودتوس- دانستیم كه چگونه كرسوس را از سوختن در میان هیزمهای افروخته رهانید و بزرگش داشت و او را از رایزنان خود ساخت؛ و نیز از بخشودگی و نیكی رفتار او با یهودیان سخن گفتیم. یكی از اركان سیاست و حكومت وی آن بود كه برای ملل و اقوام مختلفی كه اجزاء امپراطوری ایران را تشكیل میدادند٬ با آزادی عقیده‌ی دینی و عبادت معتقد بود٬ و این خود میرساند كه بر اصل اول حكومت كردن بر مردم آگاهی داشت و میدانست كه دین از دولت نیرومندتر است. بهمین جهت است كه وی هرگز شهرها را غارت نمیكرد و معابد را ویران نمیساخت».
--------------------------

بخش یك:
جرج راولینسن G. Rawlinson استاد نامی تاریخ شرق باستان٬ می‌گوید: «منش و خوی كورش بدانگونه كه یونانیان بما نشان میدهند٬ نماینده‌ی ستوده ترین پادشاهان باستانی خاور زمین است: كوشا و نیرومند و دلاور٬ در زیركیهای جنگی زبردست٬ و دارنده‌ی همه‌ی ویزگی‌های یك سپهبد پیروزمند؛ مردمانش را با رفتاری دوستانه و خودمانی فدائی خود میكرد لیكن از پذیرفتن درخواستهائی كه زیانشان در آن نهفته بود٬ دریغ مینمود.»

---------
اینجا بگمانم راولینسن به این گفته‌ی كوروش بزرگ نما كرده است: «برای ما آن به كه در سرزمین سخت و كوهستانی خود بمانیم و فرمانفرما باشیم٬ تا در دشتهای خرم و شهرهای پرناز بسر بریم و بندگی دیگران كنیم»

و همچنین هرودتوس گوید گروهی از پارسیان-كه پس از دیری درسختی و زندگی ساده‌ی شبانی زیستن٬ به زر و سیم رسیده بودند و خوشی خفتن در بسترهای نرم و خوردن خورشهای گوارا سخت خوشایندشان افتاده بود - از بازگشت بسرزمینهای كوهستانی و درشتناك خود٬ و نیز از زندگی پهلوانانه و سپاهی٬ در هراس شدند٬ و دل در آن بستند كه زنگی خود را در شهرهای زیبا٬ و در ناز و آرامش بگذارنند. پس روزی بسرداری «ارتم‌بر» نامی انجمن شدند٬ و آرزوهایشان را با یكدیگر در میان نهادند. آنگاه نزد كورش رفتند٬ و بزرگ انجمن چنین گفت: «ای كورش! اكنون كه جهان آفرین فرٌ شاهی را از ایشتوویگو گرفته٬ و به چنگ تو و پارسیانت سپرده است٬ بیا و بگذار تا این سرزمین تنگ و درشتانكی را كه آشیان ما بوده٬ رها كنیم و زیستگاهی بهتر برای خود برگزینیم. در پیرامونمان٬ چه در این نزدیكیها و چه در آن دوردستها٬ سرزمینهای نیكو فراوان است. اگر یكی را برای خود برگزینیم٬ جهانیان ما را بیشتر از اكنون خواهند ستود. چه كسی توانا بُوَد و چنان نكند؟»

كورش را این سخنان خوش نیامد و چنین پاسخ داد:

«هر كس در آرزوی چنان جنبشی باشد آزاد است٬ و میتواند در سرزمینی نو یافته و زرخیر آشیان جوید٬ لیكن شما را هشدار میدهم كه آنگاه دیگر در آرزوی فرمانروائی نمیتوانید بود٬ و باید آماده‌ی آن باشید كه به فرمان دیگران گردن بگذارید٬ زیرا كه آشیان و نرم و گرم٬ مردمان ناز پرورده و زودشكن پروراند٬ و اگر چه میوه‌ی آبدار گوارا از زمین نرم برخیزد٬ آزادگی و جنگاوی٬ و منش‌های پهلوانی در آن بخواب رود»

پایان ستایش راولینسون:
(بخش سه)

«جای شگفت نیست که پارسیان٬ در سنجش وی با پادشاهان پسین‌تر٬ یادش را با برترین بزرگداشتها و کرنشها در سینه نگهداشتند٬ و از مهری که بدو داشتند٬ اندامش را نماینده‌ی دلخواه‌ترین و ستوده‌ترین زیبائی نژادی می‌دانستند...

کورش اگر چه در آغاز کارش٬ سرداری در سختی‌ها پروریده بیشتر نبود٬ چون به شاهنشاهی رسید بخوبی نشان داد که ارزش و شکوه هنر را به نیکی در میابد. در ساختمانهایش در پاسارگاد٬ بزرگی را با زیبائی در آمیخت٬ و روشی پدید آورد که هم «ساده» است و م «پالوده و ظریف»...گمان میرود که ما ستونهای بلندی را که از پائین به بالا نازکی افسونباری می‌یابد٬ و مایه‌ی شکوهمندی بناهای پارسی است٬ باید ابداع او بدانیم...


چنان می‌نماید که کورش در زنگی خصوصی و خانوادگی نیز همان سادگی و میانه‌روی آزادانه‌ای را که در کارها داشت٬ نگهمیداشته است. میدانیم که وی یک زن بیشتر نگرفت٬ و وی شاهدخت کاسان‌دانه‌ از تخمه‌ی هخامنشی بود... که چون در گذشت شوهر را به اندوهی گران فرو برد...»
-----------------------------------------

ر. گیرشمن R. Ghirshman باستانشناس فرانسوی هم سخنان گیرائی در ستایش کورش دارد:



«از میان پادشاهان عده‌ی محدودی هستند که پس از خود شهرت و نامی نیک مانند کورش باقی گذاشته‌اند. کورش سردار بزرگ و پیشوای مردم بود. بخت نیز با او یاری می‌کرد. وی سخی و نیکخواه بود٬ و اندیشه‌‌ی آن نداشت که مماللک مفتوحه را به اتخاذ روشی واحد ملزم نماید٬ بلکه این خردمندی را داشت که موسسات هر یک از حکومتهائی را که به تاج و تخت خود ضمیمه میکرد٬ لاتیغیر باقی گذارد. او هر جا که رفت٬ خدایان مذاهب مختلف را به رسمیت شناخت و تصدیق کرد. همواره خود را جانشین قانونی حکمرانان بومی معرفی مینمود. اسکندر نخستین کسی نبود که این سیاست را اتخاذ کرد٬ بلکه او فقط از سرمشق کورش تقلید نمود و بدین وسیله مورد تحسین رعایای جدید گردید. در دوران کوروش٬ نسیمی جدید سر سراسر جهان وزیدن گرفت٬ شهرها را از قربانیها و قتلهای بناحق نجات بخشید٬ حریق شهرهای غارت شده را خاموش نمود٬‌و اقوام را از اسارت و بردگی آزاد کرد

کوروش بیش از هر فرد دیگر متوجه بود که «جهان باستان، شهرهای متمدن و قبایل وحشی، از قوای داخلی که میکوشد همه را در یک جامعه‌ی انسانی مستهلک سازد٬ بزحمت اطاعت میکنند.» ما هرگز نمی‌بینیم که کورش٬ مانند رومیان٬ ملت رقیب خود را با خویش متحد کند٬ و نخست با او مانند ملتی همشأن رفتار نماید٬ و سپس در زمان ضعف وی٬ او را تابع و مطیع کند و بدو ظلم و ستم روا دارد.

ایرانیان کورش را «پدر» و یونانیان – که وی ممالک ایشان را تسخیر کرده بود او را «سرور» و «قانونگزار» مینامیدند، و یهدویان این پادشاه را بمنزله‌ی «ممسوح پرودگار» محسوب میداشتند. با آنکه روح جنگجوی وی هرگز حتی پس از سالها جنگ و پیروزی – سست نشد، همواره نسبت بدشمن مغلوب بلند نظر بود، و بدو دست دوستی دراز میکرد»

 

 

 

Indeed not only Herodotus or Plato and many other Greeks and modern historians have praised Cyrus, but many modern scholars of the Qur’an also consider him to be the Zul-Qarnain of the Qur’an.  This is due the fact that many maintain now that Cyrus was a monotheist where-as Alexander worshiped Greek Gods and was bisexual.  Whatever the truth of the matter with regards to Zul-Qarnain of the Qur’an may be, Cyrus is widely appreciated among Christians and Jews , the Ancient Greeks (who did not usually praise the Persians), Romans, Armenians, as well various Iranian groups like the ancient Medes/Persians..

 

Now about the death of Cyrus the Great which Alireza Asgharzadeh brings up.   It should be noted that Herodotus is now known universally by all scholars as Greco-Centeric source.  Nevertheless, Herodotus clearly states:”The course of my history now compels me to inquire who this Cyrus was by whom the Lydian empire was destroyed, and by what means the Persians had become the lords paramount of Asia. And herein I shall follow those Persian authorities whose object it appears to be not to magnify the exploits of Cyrus, but to relate the simple truth. I know besides three ways in which the story of Cyrus is told, all differing from my own narrative.”(Book I, 95)

 

Thus by the time of Herodotus, Cyrus the Great’s accompolishment were so great, that he had became of myths and legend.  Ctesias and Xenophon give two different accounts of Cyrus’s passing away which contradicts Herodotus.  Now why should any modern historian just rely upon the account of Herodotus and take not note of Ctesias or Xenophon or the three other narratives which Herodotus mentions but does not narrate?

 

As per the Massagates, it is interesting that pan-Turkists like Zehtabi (and probably Asgharzadeh) like to claim them to be Turkic.  But all modern scholars consider the Massagates as Iranian people.  (Karasulas, Antony.  ''Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 Bc-ad 1300 (Elite)'',Osprey Publishing , 2004, pg 7)( Wilcox, Peter.  ''Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids'', Osprey Publishing , 1986, pg 9)(Gershevitch, Ilya.  The Cambridge History of Iran, 1985,  Volume two, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pg 48)( Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes, 1989, Rutgers University Press, pg 547).

 

Interestingly enough, according to Herodotus, the Massagates queen address Cyrus the Great as “King of Medes”(I,206).  This statement by itself could make Herodotu’s version out of the many version of Cyrus’s death least likely.  Another issue is that Herodotus, who was Greek and Greek-centeric clearly states:” Of the many different accounts which are given of the death of Cyrus, this which I have followed appears to me most worthy of credit.”(1,214).  So Asgharzadeh should not bewildered that Iranian and non-Iranian historians do not rely on one account of Cyrus’s passing away.  It can be considered as one version, but given the fact that Cyrus is addressed as the King of Mede, given the fact that Herodotus states there are many different versions of Cyrus passing away, given the fact that Ctesias and Xenophon give two other versions, given the fact that the Cyrus’s tomb is mentioned by other historians to be in Pasargard we can clearly see that giving Herodotus’s narrative undue weight is not following the methodology of correct history wirting.  Of course given the fact that Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar/Zehtabi misinterpret, manipulate and distort sources with their “colorful imagination”, it should not surprise us that they are not interested in objective methodology.

 

Also it should be mentioned that unlike the pan-Turkist claim, the Araxes of Herodotus is not the north of river Aras (Caucaus Albania and Armenia where part of the Achaemenids empire), but the Jaxartes or Oxus of Central Asia.  Pan-Turkist manipulators and distortionists in recent years have made the false claim that Massagates (generally all Scythains were Turks)!,

 

“The Araxes is the Oxus, with its general direction rightly given for the first time, but it is supposed to send off a branch to pass round the Caspian lake and end as the Tanais or Don; this branch seems an early and very wrong notion of the Jaxartes, and the same notion was shared by some of Alexander's companions when they reached that river”(“The Greek Horizon to Herodotus” in J. Oliver Thomson, “History of Ancient Geography”, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, Published 1948. pg 85)

 

“The Massagetae are a nomad population living in Sogdana to the east of the Caspian Sea between the rivers Oxus (Amu Darya) and Jaxartes (Sir Darya).”( Herodotus, Histories, Translated by Aubrey de Selincourtwith an introduction and Notes by John M. Marincola, pg 634)

 

Even the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has pointed this out:” MASSAGETAE, an ancient warlike people described by Herodotus (i. 203-216; iv. 22, 172) as dwelling beyond the Araxes (i.e. the Oxus) in what is now Balkh and Bokhara.”

 

“This shows him as mounting a great expedition against the Saka nation of Massagetae in what is now Turkestan, as crossing the Araxes (in this context not the Oxus but the jaxartes) on a bridge of boats, and falling in a hard-fought battle against the warrior queen Tomyris.”( The Cambridge History of Iran  By Ilya Gershevitch, Published 1985, Cambridge University Press, pg 214)

 

“It is obvious that to reach the Massagetae Cyrus and with him Hystapes had to cross Chorasmia”.( Ilya Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959. pg 15)

 

Although we briefly touch upon Turan and Turanians later in this article, the following point by Professor Edward A. Allworth, Emeritus Professor of Turco-Soviet Studies at Columbia University remarks:

“The Iranian tribes (Massagetae and others) east and northeast of the Persian empire, who disappeared without leaving a trace, were nomadic, as were originally most, if not all, of the Iranian people as well as those known as Soghdians, Khwarazmians, and Sakai. They were generally called, in the Persian national tradition, "Turan," as opposed to Iran, and were always considered enemies of the sedentary Persians. After the arrival of the Turks in those areas, the term Turan was ascribed by the Persians to them also, as the Turks played the same dangerous, often disastrous, historical role as had the Iranian nomadic tribes.”

 (Edward A Allworth,Central Asia: A Historical Overview,Duke University Press, 1994. pp 86.)

 

 

 

Finally, it was mentioned that the Massagates and other Scythian tribes are considred Iranians (Aryans, Indo-Iranians..) by all modern scholars.  Pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh/Zehtabi though have claimed multitude of unrelated ethnic groups like Hurrians, Summerians, Scythians, Elamites and etc. as Turks.  But they are not taken seriously by any scholars.

 

For Massagates see:

(Karasulas, Antony.  ''Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 Bc-ad 1300 (Elite)'',Osprey Publishing , 2004, pg 7)( Wilcox, Peter.  ''Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids'', Osprey Publishing , 1986, pg 9)(Gershevitch, Ilya.  The Cambridge History of Iran, 1985,  Volume two, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pg 48)( Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes, 1989, Rutgers University Press, pg 547).

 

For General Scythians:


“… Scythians and Sarmatians were of Iranian origin”
[John Channon & Robert Hudson, Penguin Historical Atlas of Russia, 1995, p.18] 

“…Indo-European in appearance and spoke an Iranian tongue which bought them more closely to the Medes and Persians”
[Tim Newark, Barbarians, 1998, p.6]  

“The Sarmatians…spoke an Iranian language similar to that of the Scythians and closely related to Persian”
[Richard Mariusz & Richard Mielczarek, The Sarmatians: 600 BC-450 AD, 2002, p.3]

 


“…of Indo-European stock belonging to…the Iranian group, often called the Scythian group of peoples…they were akin to the ancient Medes, Parthians and Persians. Their language was related to that of the Avesta…”
[Tadesuz Sulimirski, The Sarmatians, London: Thames & Hudson, 1970, p.22] 

 

 

Finally it should be noted that pan-Turkist attacks on Darius the Great, who is another target for pan-Turkists and Pourpirar has been responded to in here:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/poormozdoorzanjan.htm

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Iran/chandnaqdpoorpiraar.htm

 

 

Some scholarly articles on Cyrus the Great may be found here:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/famous/Cyrus/cyrusmain.htm

 

 

 

Asgharzadeh continues his anti-Iranian rant:

“Why so much emphasis on Cyrus and the Achaemenid? Out of Iran's over 6,000 years of history, why focus on this particular era?”

 

Again, perhaps Asgharzadeh needs a history lesson.  The history of Iran as a unified country indeed does start with Achaemenids.  There was no kingdom or empire that united Iran prior to the Achaemenids.  Note the history of Iran is different than the history of the Iranian people or the history of pre-Achaemenid civilizations in Iran.  Iran as a unified territory began its existence in the Achaemenid era.  The Iranian (Aryan) people are more ancient.  Indeed the Aryan Medes were an Iranian kingdom.  Or even prior to that, we have Zoroaster who is universally acknowledged as an Iranian (with the exception of pan-Turkist comedians like Zehtabi who are not taken seriously by the scholarly community). 

 

Thus it becomes clear that Western historians have worked hard on Elamites, Urartu, Mannea and etc.  But only the Aryan and Elamite element in Iran have significant writing.  Given the fact that the Elamite language desisted to exist after the Arab invasion, it should not wonder Asgharzadeh why Western historians study Indo-Iranian culture of Iran which is linked to the absolute majority of Iranian people today.  It is continous history in this sense.  For example there are 6000 year old artificats in every place of the world imaginable.  By they do not constitute “history” in the sense that there is no writing and their link and continuity to the present inhabitants of the area is not certain.  Thus Turkic elements in Iran are of much later date and thus the study of Iran’s ancient history is naturally a study of Indo-Iranian and Elamite elements.

 

 

“An important methodological problem for this kind of historiography is perhaps the way an image of a vast region of the globe with diverse popula­tions, cultures, languages, and ways oflife was portrayed as being represented by the image of a single ethnic group—Pars/Persian. (The province of Pars being the center of Achaemenian power, the Greeks named the entire geog­raphy under the Achaemenids as Persia and their inhabitants as Persians.) This was a major methodological and ethical error that later on proved to be devastating for non-Persian ethnic groups and nationalities particularly after the Orientalist reconstruction of Iran's history starting more vigorously from the early twentieth century.”

 

As noted already, the Greek historians and Herodotus distinguish various Iranian groups including Medes, Bactrians, Persians, Sogdians, Khwarzmians and etc.  (We gave a larger list in the previous sections).  It should be noted that the ancient Persians are part of the history of every Iranian.  Ancient Persian, which did not differ much from Median, Avestan and other Iranian languages are considered part of the shared history of Iranians.  Perhaps Alireza Asgharzadeh, identifying himself as a Turk does not consider this part of his heritage.  That is fine, but at the time of Achaemenids, there was no Turks in Iran.  So it is obvious that the connection of Indo-Iranians (Iranians, Aryans..) with the vast bulk of modern population of Iran who speak Iranian (Iranic, Aryan, Indo-Iranian) languages is something that will be studied.  Also it should be known that the ancient Greeks themselves had diversity: Spartans, Ionians, Lydians, Athenians..and etc.  The name “Yunan” used for Greek in much of the Muslim World comes from Ionia.  There is no methodological problem here that Asgharzadeh blows out of proportions.  The ancient Persians are not just part of the history of Farsi-speakers or even other Indo-Iranian speakers of Iran.  They represent an important epoch in world history. 

 

Asgharzadeh’s mis-information and falsification of the Avesta

Asgharzadeh then continues:

“We can see tracks of ethnocentric Persian ideas in such historical texts as the holy book of Avesta and the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi”

 

Here we can see the double game played by Asgharzadeh.  He in the previous quote bemoans the fact that authors have made Persian and Iranian as equivalent (and indeed these two terms in terms of geography and historical sense are equivalent) and yet in the quote above, he wants to assign the Shahnameh and Avesta to only Farsi-Speakers of Iran.  The fact of the matter is that the Shahnameh is a Iranian epic which has a very high place among all Iranians including Kurds, Talysh, Farsi Speakers, Bakhtiaris, ..Similarly in the Avesta, we only see “Iranian” and do not see the word “Persian”.  The Avesta people were an eastern Iranian people, who spoke an eastern Iranian language.  Thus Asgharzadeh, whenever it suits him, confuses Iranian with Persian and at the same time criticizes other scholars for doing so!  Either way, the above sentence of Asgharzadeh raises another issue.  In one portion of his book, he blames “colonialists” for promoting ethnocentric Persian ideas and in the above sentence, he lays the blame on Avesta and Shahnameh.  Without getting involved in the Avesta, it should be noted that the Seljuqs, Safavids, Qajars, Ottomons and etc. all promoted the Shahnameh.  Either these groups lacked any sense of the modern artificial Turkic identity developed by pan-Turkists, Elchibeys and Ataturk, or they considered the Shahnameh as universal.

 

Asgharzadeh continues:

“The Avesta is a written source believed to have survived from the pre-Islamic era. Notwithstanding the current debate about the authenticity of the exist­ing version of Avesta (Zehtabi 1999; Poorpirar 2001a, 2001b, 2002-2005), this holy book contains many important passages that bear witness to the rich multiethnic, multilingual, and multicultural character of the pre-Islamic Iranian society.”

 

As usual, no one except pan-Turkists are interested in the “debates” of Zehtabi/Poorpirar.  As per the authenticity of Avesta, as was pointed out in this article, the Avesta along with Pahlavi were the key in deciphering Old Persian and from there, every ancient Cuneiform language. 

Finally, Asgharzadeh provides no proof for: “the rich multiethnic, multilingual, and multicultural character of the pre-Islamic Iranian society.”.  In the Avesta, we hear nothing about “Persian” and “Turk” or “Kurd” or “Elamite”.  The Avesta’s geographical location is somewhere near Chorasmia, not modern Iran.  Furthermore, the tribes mentioned in the Avesta are all Iranian tribes, with Iranian names, Iranian culture and Iranian language.   According to Prof. Gherado Gnloli:”Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht,  Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’.  (G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980).  Indeed the name of all these tribes are Iranian (Indo-Iranian) and have Iranian etymology.  For example see the book by Professor. Mayrhofer:

 

DIE AVESTISCHEN NAMEN

MANFRED MAYRHOFER

Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

 

 

Thus the Avesta geography is not for the most part related to the modern Iranian platue.  Furthermore the tribes in the Avesta are all Indo-Iranian speaking tribes and politically correct but abused by pan-Turkists concepts like “rich multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural” do not occur in the Avesta.

 

Asgharzadeh the continues to misinform the readers:

“Zarathustra (630-553, or 628-551, or 618-541 BC) is said to be an Iranian prophet who lived and died in northwestern Iran during the sixth- and seventh cen­tury BC (Jackson 1899; Zehtabi, 1999). As Jackson puts it, "Oriental tradi­tion seems to be fairly correct in assigning, as his native land, the district of Atropatene or Adarbaijan, to the west of Media, or even more precisely the neighborhood about Lake Urumiah" (1899, p. 17).”

 

It is very interesting that the name Zarathustra occurs in Avesta, Pahlavi, modern Persian but has nothing to do with Turkic cultures.  All Zoroastrians texts are in Avesta, Pahlavi and modern Persian.  The Turkic groups massacared a large number of Zoroastrians in history.  Also Azerbaijan at the time of Zarathustra and Medes was Aryan speaking.  The name Azerbaijan and its ancient form Atrapatekan does not occur in any Turkic text.  Because the name is not Turkic and the inhabitants of Azerbaijan spoke Iranic languages prior to Islamc as attested by all modern scholars.   Furthermore, virtually all modern scholars believe that Zoroaster homeland is situated somewhere between Sistan to Chorasmia.    Thus quoting an article from 1899 is not going to help Asgharzadeh with his case of trying to appropriate the Aryan (Iranian) prophet Zarathustra to Turkic cultures! (And of course Zehtabi/Pooprirar with Sumerians, Elamites, Urartu, Hurrians, Medes, even Cyrus and Khazar!.. are baseless). 

 

Let us quote the present knowledge (2007) from a  scholarly source.  Professor. Robert P. Gordon has summarized the present knowledge nicely:

“In the light of this, the questions of Zoroaster's homeland and the sphere of his activity become important. Once again, though, there is no consensus. This is largely, hut not entirely, due to the differences in dating. Boyce for example, working with a second millennium BC date, locales him somewhere in the south Russian steppes "perhaps in some northerly region of the steppes”. In the conlext of a sixth-century date for Zoroaster, though, this location can be excluded.  Classi­cal sources, and even oriental sources, are divided on the issue, some placing him in the west, in Media or Azerbaijan, others in ihc east in a variety of locations.   That a western location for Zoroaster himself is excluded has been known for many years. He is rather lo be sought in the east, since the language of the Avesia belongs 'between the Western Iranian dialects as spoken in present-day Persia, and the Eastern dialects on the Indian frontier and to the North of the River Oxus'.  Not only so, but the geographical horizon of the Avesta is entirely eastern in its nature.  Even though there is general agreement that Zoroaster came from the east, a number of different places have been proposed as possibilities, ranging from the north-east to the south-east, and covering parts of Uzbekistanm Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and eastern Iran.  Gnoli  after detailed analysis, comes to the conclusion that 'the region where Zoroaster preached cannot be determined exactly." However, it can be more closely defined: “the northernmost regions where Zoroaster carried out his work were Bactria and Areia and the southernmost Drangiana and Araehosia: not Chorasmia nor. substantially. Sogdiana'.   This conclusion corresponds with Zoroastrian tradition, which sees the lands that either early accepted Zoroastrianism or came under the influence of Zoroaster's preaching as lying in the south-east of Iran and western Afghanistan. It also corresponds with the area denoted by the term 'Ariana' in Greek sources.”(See Simon J. Sherwin, “Old Testament monotheism and Zoroastrian influence” in  R.P. Gordon, The God of Israel, Cambridge University Press, pg 116).

 

Thus Asgharzadeh deceives the users by trying to use an outdated (1899) source.  Either way, scholars are unanimous that Zoroastrianism developed amongst the eastern Iranian (Aryan) people and funny attemps by pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh/Zehtabi to appropriate Zoroastrianism into Altaic cultures is simply futile and academically immoral.  It should be noted that during the process of Turkification of Azerbaijan, Zoroastrianism was completely wiped out.  As Professor. Mary Boyce has pointed out: “Beyond Kerman again there were Zoroastrians in Seistan, but the subsequent extinc­tion of the community there means that none of its records survive. Even more remarkably, there were also still Zoroastrians in Khorasan, that gateway of invasion and slaughter; but no more is heard after the tenth century of any of the old faith in Azarbaijan, in the north-west, and the community there may well have met its end under Ghazan Khan, who made his capital at Tabriz.”  A good example of a Iranian/Persian Zoroastrian from Azerbaijan is Bahmayar the son of Marzuban who was from Azerbaijan and one of the students of Avicenna.  He had nothing to do with Altaic Turkic groups and yet pan-Turkists try to lay claim on him and Turkifiy him.  As everyone knows, Bahmanyar lived in an era that was before the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan.

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/pursinabahmanyar.htm

 

 

But the distortion does not end here.  Asgharzadeh continues:

“The Avesta contains two kinds of distinct teachings: the Gathas and the Yashts, the Gathas are believed to be what remains of Zarathustra's original doctrines, whereas the Yashts are understood to have been added to the Avesta long after Zarathustra's death (see also Gershevitch, 1967).”

 

We note that Asgharzadeh users the book of Gershevitch.  Gershevitch is very clear that Zoroastrianism is an Iranic/Indo-Iranian/Aryan religion.  Yet Asgharzadeh wants to intertwine the scholarly material of Gershevitch (albeit from 40 years ago) with the pseudo-scholarly and false material of Zehtabi as will be shown.  We also note that the Gathas are an Iranian language, and have very close affinity with Old Persian.

 

Old Persian Text

Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 , Part 8 , Part 9 , Part 10

Part 11 , Part 12 , Part 13 , Part 14 , Part 15 , Part 16 , Part 17 , Part 18

Part 19 , Part 20 , Part 21 , Part 22 , Part 23

Roland Kent, 1950

 

Asgharzadeh then tries to cleverly interleave pan-Turkists materials with scholarly materials:

“Some scholars have distinguished the authentic and inauthentic segments of the Avesta by identifying it as a book containing two distinct religious doctrines: Zarathustrianism and Zoroastrianism. By Zarathustrianism, they refer to the original religion of the indigenous peoples of Azerbaijan and Ekbatan, founded by Prophet Zarathustra, a man who was one of those indigenous people who spoke their language, and who lived among them (Zehtabi, 1999). By Zoroastrianism, they refer to doctrines developed by Indo-European-Persian races, who were not Zarathustrian themselves but who usurped and fabricated the original teachings of Zarathustra during the Sasanid dynasty. This process of usurpation and fabrication of original Zarathustrianism has been referred to as Zoroastrianization of Zarathustra (see also Gershevitch, 1967).  At the time of Zarathustrianism's prominence in Azerbaijan, the Indo-European "Persians thought of themselves as Mazdah-worshippers, not as Zarathustrians" (Gershevitch, 1967, p. 16). Zarathustra's name appears nowhere in the records left behind by the most ancient Persian dynasty, the Achaemenians (550-330 BC). Conversely, in original Avesta texts, there is no sign indicative either of Achaemenians or their vast empire (see also Gershevitch, 1967; Yarshater, 1985).”

 

We can already ignore Zehtabi as he is a non-scholar.  But Professor Gershevtich’s view does not match Asgharzadeh’s madeup view at all.  Professor Gershevitch says:”The Avesta is a collection of sacred writings belong to two religions, which are conveniently referred to as Zarathushtrianism and Zoroastrianism.  Formally Zarathushtrian and Zoroastrian writings are easily distinguished, in that the former are composed in the Archaic Gathic dialect of Avestan, the latter in what by constrast is called the Younger Avesta  idiom.  The only religious tenets which can be reliably ascribed to Zarathustrianism are those explained or implied in Zarathustra's own words as handed down in the Gathas” ( Ilya Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1967. pg 9).  Thus Professor Gershevtich is clear about the Iranian-ness of Zoroastrianism and everyone knows that the Gathas are an Iranian language.  So are the younger Avesta.  Furthermore, the language of Zoroastrianism is in the younger Avesta.  Unlike the now normal false claims of Asgharzadeh which the reader is used to, both Zarathustrianism and Zoroastrianism are products of Indo-European and Indo-Iranians and more particularly the Avesta speaking people.  Professor Gershevitch clearly states:”Zoroastrianism to a fair sample of which greater part of this book is devoted, is a mixed religion whose ingredients are:

1)      Zarathushtrianism

2)      The cult of certain non-Zarathushtrian divinities who are either (a) Indo-Iranian b) have no counerpart in the Vedas and there peculiarly Iranian

3)      Certain Zarathushtrian notions (eg. Ashi, Sraosha) recast as divinities on the pattern of divinities”( Ilya Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959. pg 9). 

Note all of these three are Iranian concepts.  The Zarathushtirians notions like Ashi and Sroasha are Iranian concepts. 

Futhermore, Professor Gershevitch writes about the codification of Zoroastrianism:

“This task of ‘codification’ was undertaken by Zarathushtrian priests because they alone had the skills to do so, having been brought up in the highly developed literary tradition which we first meet in Zarahushtra’s poem.  They had enough literary sources at their disposal.  Mazdahism was abundantly represnted in the works of Zarathushtra and his immediate successors, of which they were the jealous custodians.  ..But the mixed religion as such had no scripture to represent it, and probably did not yet belong to any particular denomination.  Here lay the incentive for the Zarathushtrian authors: by supplying the mixed religion with a scripture, and presenting it as having been revealed by Ahura Mazdah to Zarathushtra, they could establish the claim that they alone were its legitimate priestly representatives.  In attempting to trace the origin of the religious mixture, we must bear in mind that the Avestan scripture is reliable evidence of the religious experience of only one Iranian people, namely the one whose language Avestan was.  This people occurred a country called Aryana Vaejah, which partly or wholly coincided with the Greater Chorasmian state abolished by Cyrus (55-530)(see Henning, Zoroaster. )” ( Ilya Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1967. pg 9).

 

Thus as we can see, according to Professor. Gershevitch, it was Zarathushtrian Avesta speaking priests who developed Zoroastrianism and not the “Indo-European-Persian-Races”!  Interestingly enough, Asgharzadeh uses the term “Indo-European-Persian-Races!”.  It should be mentioned that there is no such race as “Indo-European-Persian-Races”.  Indo-European is a language group and Asgharzadeh sometimes uses it as a race and other times as a language group.

 

Futhermore Asgharzadeh blatantly lies “At the time of Zarathustrianism's prominence in Azerbaijan, the Indo-European "Persians thought of themselves as Mazdah-worshippers, not as Zarathustrians" (Gershevitch, 1967, p. 16).”

 

No where does on page 16 of the book state such a false lie.  Indeed page 16 of the book states:

“It is obvious that to reach the Massageta Cyrus and with him Hystaspes had to cross Chorasmia.  Here is a historically attested link between Zarathushtra’s country and Darius.  What Vishtaspa brought back and imparted to oung Darius need not have been more than the bare outlines of Zarathushtra’s religion.  The prophet’s name would scarcely interested Darius as much as the fact this was the religion of Aryana Vaejah, ‘the expanse of the Iranians’, the region where Iranians first established a political and cultural centre.  In Ahura Mazdah, the sole god of the official religion of Aryana Vaejah, Darius would see the true ‘God of the Iranians’, as the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription calls him.  In placing himself under his protection Darius may hwell have felt that he had secured the best possible support for his plan to impose Iranian rule oon the world.  With this interpretation one understands why Zarathushtra’s name appears nowhere in Achaemenian records: the ancient Persians who held his religion thought themselves as Mazda worshippers, not Zarathushtrians.” ( Ilya Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1967. pg 9).

 

Thus Asgharzadeh lies.  Zarathustrianism had no relation to Azerbaijan.  Indeed the Magi, rival Aryan (indo-Iranian) priests held sway in Azerbaijan and Media.  Zarathustrianism’s center according to Gershevitch was in Aryana Vaejah (expanse of Aryans).  Which was in eastern Iranian somewhere between Sistan to Chorasmia.  No where on pg 16 does Professor. Gershevitch mention Azerbaijan!  Furthermore, Professor Gershevitch gives a reason that the Persians “held” Zarathusthra’s religion.  But called themselves Mazda worshippers.  This should not surprise us either.  Muslims do not call themselves Mohammadans.  Neither do Jews call themselves Mosesians.  So here we have a clear distortion by Asgharzadeh.  Asgharzadeh first tried to intertwine the scholarly material of Gershevitch with the false material of Zehtabi.  Seeing a complete contradiction between the two, he had no choice but to put statements like “At the time of Zarathustrianism’s prominence in Azerbaijan” in pg 16 of Gershevitch’s book, while such a statement does not exist in Gershevitch’s book.

 

Also it should be noted that in Zoroastrian texts, the religion is always called the religion of Mazda Worshippers.

 

“Spitama Zarathushtra said in answer: 'No! never will I renounce the good Religion of the worshippers of Mazda, either for body or life, though they should tear away the breath!'”( vendidad, 19:7)

 

 

Either way, Asgharzadeh falsified materials with this regards.  Also we should note that many (if not most) scholars do not agree with Gershevitch and Henning’s development of Zoroastrianism (which has nothing to do with Zehtabi/Asgharzadeh plagiarism/revisionism). 
For example Professor Mary Boyce states:

“Achaemenian tombs and funerary sculptures show a mixture of Zoroastrian orthopraxy (with scrupulous care for the purity of the creations) with alien usages and newly adopted symbols; and this mixture demonstrates the fact that, though the Persians received Zoroastrianism as an authoritative revelation come to them from the east, yet, as a great imperial people, they set their own imprint on it in a number of lasting ways.

…

Zoroaster's doctrines thus shaped the conduct of his own followers. They also exerted a profound influence at this time throughout the Near East. There is no evidence for any proselytizing among non-Iranians under the Achaemenians, but Persian officials, with their households, were to be found in dominant positions in every province of the empire, together (in non-Iranian regions) with colonies of merchants and other settlers; and when there were Persians there were Zoroastrian priests to minister to their needs and serve at their place of worship. (The clearest evidence for this, because of Greek notices, comes from the provinces of Asia Minor.)

 

The magi appear then still to have known that Cyrus had embraced the teachings of Zoroaster and made them current in the world by battling against unbelievers, a role ascribed in the Avesta to Kavi Vistaspa, the first royal patron of the faith.   Traditional gene­alogies (transmitted perhaps with the lost Persian epic poetry) would have preserved the fact that Cyrus was soon followed on the throne by Darius the Great; and, as we have seen, Darius' father was himself called Vistaspa. In ancient Iran a son regularly succeeded his father; and it seems that scholar-priests, struggling to reconcile these diverse facts, came to the satisfying but erroneous conclusion that Cyrus, the Persian conqueror of Babylon, was to be identified as the father of Darius, that is, as the Achaemenian Vistaspa; and that, further, this Vistaspa was the Kavi Vistaspa who was celebrated in the Avesta. This reconstruction would have seemed all the more reasonable since by that time (probably in the early centuries of the Christian era) the Me­dian magi had annexed most of the Avestan tradition to western Iran, so that it was not difficult for their scholars to see Kavi Vistaspa as an Achaemenian king. It was these developments, it seems, which led in the end to complete oblivion for Cyrus in Zoroastrian tradition, a blank which has puzzled many scholars; for it thus became possible to see the date of his conquest of Babylon, 539 B.C., as a moment of triumph and joy for Kavi Vistaspa, and so to identify it as the vital point in world history when the latter king embraced the prophet's teachings and proclaimed them to his subjects.”(Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: their religious belief and practices, New York : Routledge & K. Paul, 2001)

 

Thus in the opinion of Professor Boyce, Achaemenids were Zoroastrians who took the original eastern Aryan (Iranian) Zoroastrian tradition and added some of the local Persian elements from Pars to it and spread the religion amongst the Iranian people.  Also the Achaemenids were not forgotten, but they became part of the myths of the nation.  We shall delve with this issue in the Shahnameh section.

 

The opinion of Professor. Oktor Skjærvø, who is currently a Professor of Iranian studies in Harvard University (year 2007) is also worth quoting:

“From the historical and linguistic evidence, as well as the geographical horizon of the Young Avesta, we can surmise that the oldest texts originated among the ancient Iranians who inhabited the area between the Aral Sea and modern Afghanistan in the second millennium b.c.e., that is, in the area of the modern Central Asian republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, whereas the younger texts were probably composed in the area of modern Afghanistan and eastern Iran.

     The supreme god of Zoroastrianism is Ahura Mazdâ, literally, the All-knowing Ruler, and Zarathustra is commonly regarded as its prophet and founder.  In both the Old and Young Avesta, however, Zarathustra is presented as a mythical figure, a poet and a priest, to whom Ahura Mazdâ confided the sacred ritual texts and the other ingredients of the sacrifice for him to take them down to proclaim and use among mortals.  This would qualify him as a “prophet” in the Classical Greek sense.  For the later Zoroastrians, he was the one who received God’s word and transmitted it to mankind, and it is in more recent times that he has been elevated to the status of prophet, in the Biblical, Muslim, and modern senses, both among Zoroastrians and Western scholars.

     The Greeks called Zarathustra Zoroaster, hence the name of the religion.  The followers of this religion are also called Mazdeans (or Mazdayasnians) after the Old Iranian term mazda-yasna, which literally means “he who sacrifices (performs a ritual of offerings) to Ahura Mazdâ.”  Correspondingly, the religion is also called Mazdaism or Mazdayasnianism.”

…

     The Achaemenid kings

     The Achaemenid kings describe in their inscriptions how they sacrificed to Ahura Mazdâ and fought against the Lie and altogether endeavored to be good Zoroastrians.

     The official records in Elamite from the palaces at Persepolis contain religious terminology in connection with provisions for sacrifices.

     The Aramaic texts from Persepolis contain inventories of implements used in the haoma sacrifices: pestles and mortars

     The letters from Egypt, written in the fifth century b.c.e., contain theophoric names, that are clearly Zoroastrian.

     The writings of Greek (later also Roman) historians and philosophers sometimes describe Iranian religious practices or make various references to them.

.. 

     The question most commonly asked by historians of Iranian religion throughout this century, and one of those most hotly debated, has been whether the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians or not.  The answer to this question has commonly been sought in terms of similarities and differences between Zoroastrianism and the Achaemenid religion as expressed in their inscriptions.  The differences have often been defined in terms of “omissions and discrepancies” in the inscriptions as compared with Zoroastrianism: it is argued that, since many key terms and notions of Zoroastrianism are absent from the Old Persian inscriptions, the Achaemenid religion was at least not “pure” Zoroastrianism. Such points of view, however, do not take sufficiently into account the fact that the Avesta, our principal source for the oldest Iranian religion, and the Old Persian inscriptions are two fundamentally different kinds of texts: royal proclamations versus ritual texts, as well as in different languages.  There is therefore no particular reason to expect the mention of Zarathustra, for instance, who, we may note, is also not mentioned in the Sasanian inscriptions, which are clearly “Zoroastrian.”

     To answer such a question one must, of course, carefully describe and define both “Achaemenid religion” and “Zoroastrianism.”  For our purpose, we shall loosely define the former as the religion expressed in the various primary and secondary sources at our disposal and the latter as the religion expressed in the Avesta, the sacred book of the Zoroastrians.  We shall see that there are so many similarities between Achaemenid religion and Zoroastrianism defined in this manner that it is hard to conclude that the latter was not the religion of the Achaemenid kings, at least from Darius on.

    The original question then has two possible answers.  Either the Achaemenids had always been Zoroastrians, or there was a religious reform by which the early Achaemenids became Zoroastrians.  Mary Boyce argues for the first solution by simply pointing out that there are no indications in our sources that there was any kind of religious reform at that time; and so it would be a plausible conclusion that by the 6th century the Avesta was known in western Iran and that from Darius on, at least, the Avesta was bodily in Persis.   On the whole, this seems to be the better solution, although other scenarios are thinkable.  If, for instance, the religion was brought by Persian conquerors, there would be no reform, just the superimposition of their religion upon that of the conquered, and there are indications (in the genealogy) that this may be the case.( Course notes for use in Early Iranian Civilizations 102 (Divinity School no. 3663a), Harvard University).

Given the much more recent material of Oktor Skjærvø and Mary Boyce on the study of Zoroastrianism under Achaemenids and also given the scholarly article of Professor Skjærvø:

 

Avesta Quotations in Old Persian?

Literary Sources of the Old Persian Inscription

Part I, II, III, IV

Prods Oktor Skjærvø

 

Their opinion seems more sound than Professor. Gershevitch.  Either way, none of these important scholars(Gershevitch, Henning, Boyce, Skjærvø) share the false ideas and pseudo-scholarly theories of Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar/Zehtabi.  They all state clearly that Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion.  Its founder is Iranian.  Its origin lies in Eastern Iran.  And it’s connection to Iranian/Persian culture is strong and permanent. 

Asgharzadeh continues with his misinterpretation of Zoroastrianism and tries to mix it in with modern political correctness concepts of “diversity, racism, multi-culturalism”.  By doing so, he manipulates the facts as he wishes.  For example he states:

“In the Avesta there is a section titled "Videvdat" (Vendidad by some accounts) or the "Law against Demons." There can be little doubt that the Avesta had borrowed these segments from the rituals and traditions of indigenous peoples in the region. In ancient Azerbaijan's sharnanist tradition, all natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and storms, were regarded as demonic forces that sought to destroy humans and their means of livelihood.”

First ancient Azerbaijan was not shamanist.  The worldnet dictionary from Princeton (2006) defines shamanism as:

“

1.      any animistic religion similar to Asian shamanism (especially as practiced by certain Native American tribes) 

2.      an animistic religion of northern Asia having the belief that the mediation between the visible and the spirit worlds is effected by shamans 

“

The people of Iran and near east in general had a complex civilization and shamanism is more titled towards nomadic people of all backgrounds.  So even before Zoroaster, we can see that the Indo-Iranians worshipped various Gods.  Some of these Gods, had to do with natural forces and others did not.  But the sort of religion was more complex than Shamanism.  We do not possess a single evidence of the madeup “ancient Shamanist tradition” of Azerbaijan, since we do not have a single text with this regard.  But the bowl of Hasanlu (Some have claimed Indo-Iranians, others Hurrians) found in South East of lake Urmia for example clearly shows a system that is much more complex than Shamanism.  Thus Asgharzadeh, having not a single shred of evidence takes it upon himself to manipulate, mould, distort, plagiarize, falsify and appropriate history as he wishes and tries to relate the Videvdat with “Azerbaijan’s shamanist tradition” which has never existed and there is not a single line of text about it.

Asgharzadeh then continues:

“Moreover, the inhabitants of northern parts of Iran were constantly threat­ened by other human enemies as well. According to Sharnanist tradition, the threats and catastrophes could be prevented by rites and rituals of aversion (Zehtabi, 1999). It is some of these prayers that Videvdat has recorded:

Perish, demon fiend! Perish, demon tribe! Perish, demon-created! Perish, demon-begotten! In the north shall you perish! (Videvdat 10:9, 19:43; see also Olmstcad, 1998, p. 18)

There are also prayers against various illnesses:

Thee, Sickness, I ban; thee, Fever, I ban; thee, Death, I ban; thee, Evil-Eye, I ban. (Videvdat 8:21, 20:7; see also Olmstead, 1998, p. 18)

 

”

 

Again, someone like Zehtabi who has not published a single journal in any peer reviewed journal and someone like Poorpirar who does not have any academic background is quoted to make history.  Also given the fact that Shamanists have rites to to prevent catastrophe is nothing new and Zehtabi was not the first person to observe this simple fact.  But  checking Videvdat 10:9 and 19:43, none of the quotes by Asgharzadeh was found.  Indeed what was found is:

http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd10sbe.htm

http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm#section6

http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd8sbe.htm

 

“9. 'After thou hast thrice said those Thris-amrutas, thou shalt say aloud these victorious, most healing words:-

'"10.  I drive away Indra1, I drive away Sauru1, I drive away the daeva Naunghaithya1, from this house, from this borough, from this town, from this land; from the very body of the man defiled by the dead, from the very body of the woman defiled by the dead; from the master of the house, from the lord of the borough, from the lord of the town, from the lord of the land; from the whole of the world of Righteousness. “(10:9)

“. 'They cried about, their minds wavered to and fro93, Angra Mainyu the deadly, the Daeva of the Daevas; Indra the Daeva, Sauru the Daeva, Naunghaithya the Daeva, Taurvi and Zairi94; Aeshma of the murderous spear95; Akatasha the Daeva96; Winter, made by the Daevas; the deceiving, unseen Death; Zaurva97, baneful to the fathers; Buiti the Daeva98; Driwi99 the Daeva; Daiwi100 the Daeva; Kasvi101 the Daeva; Paitisha102 the most Daeva-like amongst the Daevas.”(19:43)

“'"Keep us from our hater, O Mazda and Armaiti Spenta! Perish, O fiendish Druj! Perish, O brood of the fiend! Perish, O creation of the fiend! Perish, O world of the fiend! Perish away, O Druj! Rush away, O Druj! Perish away, O Druj! Perish away to the regions of the north, never more to give unto death the living world of Righteousness!"”(8:21)

And indeed in Fargard 20 we read:

“Zarathushtra asked Ahura Mazda: 'Ahura Mazda, most beneficent Spirit, Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! Who was he who first of the healers2, of the wise, the happy, the wealthy, the glorious, the strong, the Paradhatas3, drove back sickness to sickness, drove back death to death4; and first turned away the point of the sword and the fire of fever from the bodies of mortals?'

Ahura Mazda answered: 'Thrita it was who first of the healers, of the wise, the happy, the wealthy, the glorious, the strong, the Paradhatas, drove back sickness to sickness, drove back death to death, and first turned away the point of the sword and the fire of fever from the bodies of mortals.

'He asked for a source of remedies; he obtained it from Khshathra-Vairya5, to withstand sickness and to withstand death; to withstand pain and to withstand fever; to withstand Sarana and to withstand Sarastya6; to withstand Azana and to withstand Azahva; to withstand Kurugha and. to withstand Azivaka; to withstand Duruka and to 'withstand Astairya; to withstand the evil eye, rottenness, and infection which Angra Mainyu had created against the bodies of mortals.

'And I Ahura Mazda brought down the healing plants that, by many hundreds, by many thousands, by many myriads, grow up all around the one Gaokerena7

'All this do we achieve; all this do we order; all these prayers do we utter, for the benefit of the bodies of mortals.

'To withstand sickness and to withstand death; to withstand pain and to withstand fever; to withstand Sarana and to withstand Sarastya; to withstand Azana and to withstand Azahva; to withstand Kurugha and to withstand Azivaka; to withstand Duruka and to withstand Astairya; to withstand the evil eye, rottenness, and infection which Angra Mainyu has created against the bodies of mortals.

'To thee, O Sickness, I say avaunt! to thee, O Death, I say avaunt! to thee, O Pain, I say avaunt! to thee, O Fever, I say avaunt! to thee, O Evil Eye, I say avaunt! to thee, O Sarana, I say avaunt! and to thee, O Sarastya, I say avaunt! to thee, O Azana, I say avaunt! and to thee, O Azahva, I say avaunt! to thee, O Kurugha, I say avaunt! and to thee, O Azivaka, I say avaunt! to thee, O Duruka, I say avaunt! and to thee, O Astairya, I say avaunt!”(20:1-9)

 

From the above we can see clearly that Asgharzadeh has misinterpreted the Avesta.  Firstly in Fargard 20, Thrita is mentioned as the first healer.  Thrita (Fereydoon in Shahnameh) is a Indo-Iranian mythical king and thus the traditions of Avesta are clearly Iranian.  Furthermore, interestingly enough, in Fargard 20, we can see that a combination of plants for healing and prayer is used to drive away sickness.  This is what many people of the world do even today.  So these prayers against various illness and Deamons (Divs) have nothing to do with some Turkic shamanist tradition not found in Azerbaijan.  All the kings, Deamons and prayers have indo-Iranians names and titles.

Asgharzadeh then continues: “Building upon the existing tradition and culture, in the original Avesta, div, or demon would mean whatever was against the welfare and happiness of human beings.”

That is not true. 

As the Vendidad clearly shows, Div in the original Avesta meant Deamons.  Indeed the words Daeva and Daemon in modern English are cognates.

“. 'They cried about, their minds wavered to and fro93, Angra Mainyu the deadly, the Daeva of the Daevas; Indra the Daeva, Sauru the Daeva, Naunghaithya the Daeva, Taurvi and Zairi94; Aeshma of the murderous spear95; Akatasha the Daeva96; Winter, made by the Daevas; the deceiving, unseen Death; Zaurva97, baneful to the fathers; Buiti the Daeva98; Driwi99 the Daeva; Daiwi100 the Daeva; Kasvi101 the Daeva; Paitisha102 the most Daeva-like amongst the Daevas.”(19:43)

The Daeva, were considered opposed to the Amsha Spentas and Izadan (holy angels) of Zoroastrianism.  They were the forces of Ahriman who support death and destruction and battle the forces of good.  Thus the Daeva are actual entities and not some abstract concept as Asgharzadeh would like us to believe.  For example the Indo-Iranian entity Indra is considered a Daeva.   All the Daeva mentioned in the Avesta have Indo-Iranian names and are Aryan deities. 

Opposing the Yazata are the demons (daeva) or evil spirits, whose number are legion, though the Avesta mentions only about forty-five by name(Yasna 27.1, 57.17; Yasht 9.4, 19.18; Bundahishn 28.12, 28.14-46; Vendidad 10.16). These hordes of evil spirits are poorly depicted in the Zoroastrian scriptures. In many cases their traits ap­pear blurred, though on the whole they seem to be diabolic, of fiendish character, and the embodiment of all that is evil (Yasht 10.50, 13.57; Vendidad 18.54-55, 19.3). They are of both genders and their motive is to assault, to create trouble, to plot against, to be­witch, to seduce, to destroy, and to kill all human beings while they are in this world, and to torment the souls of the wicked after death. All demons are instigators of some evil. Consequently, they should be abjured and relentlessly put down.(Solomon Alexander Nigosian, The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research, McGill-Queen's Press, 1993. pg 87)

 

Gladly leaving this controversial question we must now say a few words about the daivas themselves. Daiva- (Av. daiva-, Skt. deva-) is the Indo-Iranian designation for a certain class of deity: distinguished from them are the ahuras (Skt. asuras). The two classes of deity developed on very different lines in the sister civilizations of India and Iran. In India the devas increased in importance and gradually ousted the asuras: in Iran it was the ahuras who gained the day while the daivas were gradually reduced to the rank of demons.( R. C. (Robert Charles) Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, 1972. pg 17)

The Encyclopedia Iranica has a very detailed article about the Daiva Indo-Iranian deities.  See:

(Encyclopedia Iranica, “Daiva”, Clarisse Herrenschmidt and Jean Kelllens, http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v6f6/v6f6a026.html)

 

Thus Asgharzadeh has totally distorted and manipulated the Daiva in the Avesta tradition in order to further distort history.  He writes: “In its original form, there were no implicit or explicit racial and cultural biases intended by Videvdat. Zarathustrianism claimed to be a universal religion that favored no one particular race and group over another. It never intended to demonize one race and glorify another.

However, after the addition of the section known as Yashts, the notions of impartiality and universalism all but vanished (see also Gershevitch, 1967).  ). It is in these added sections that the Aryan/Indo-European races are depicted to be favored by Ahura-Mazda, the God of Goodness, Truth, and Light. All non-Aryan, non- Indo-European, non-Persian races are demonized, converted to divs and evils who fought alongside the Ahriman against Ahura-Mazda, whom the Aryans alone defended

Yasht 9:18, for example, depicts the famous Turanian King Afrasiyab as a worthless thief who is slain by Kai Khosrau:

Frangrasyan [Afrasiyab], from his cleft in the earth swam across Vouru-kasha in a vain attempt to steal the "farr" [the Magnificent Royal Glory] that bestowed permanent sovereignty. Captured and bound by a loyal vassal, he was brought to be slain by the Kavi Haostravah [Kai Khosrau]. (Yashts 9:18,19:56; Yasna 11:7)

 

”(pg 56)

In actuality, no where does Gershevitch make such claims that the notion of “impartiality” all but vanished with Yashts.   Also the term Daemon/Div in Avesta has no racial or cultural implication. The Daiva were simply Indo-Iranian deities worshipped by groups of Iranian speakers.  As already mentioned, the Avesta says nothing about Persians.  It says nothing about non-Indo-European races.  And it says nothing about non-Aryans.  Prof. Gherado Gnloli:”Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht,  Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’.  (G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980).  All of these tribes as mentioned have Iranian names just like the Daiva all have Indo-Iranian names.  They are all Indo-European groups. 

Professor C.E. Boseworth explains:

 “In early Islamic times Persians tended to identify all the lands to the northeast of Khorasan and lying beyond the Oxus with the region of Turan, which in the Shahnama of Ferdowsi is regarded as the land allotted to Fereydun's son Tur. The denizens of Turan were held to include the Turks, in the first four centuries of Islam essentially those nomadizing beyond the Jaxartes, and behind them the Chinese (see Kowalski; Minorsky, “Turan”). Turan thus became both an ethnic and a geographical term, but always containing ambiguities and contradictions, arising from the fact that all through Islamic times the lands immediately beyond the Oxus and along its lower reaches were the homes not of Turks but of Iranian peoples, such as the Sogdians and Khwarezmians.” (Encyclopædia Iranica, "CENTRAL ASIA: The Islamic period up to the mongols", C. Edmund Bosworth)

 

 

It should be emphasized that the Turanians were of the same ethnic group as Airyas, Sairimas, Dainus and Dahis.  All Turanians in the Avesta have pure Iranian name.

DIE AVESTISCHEN NAMEN

MANFRED MAYRHOFER

Part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

 

I. M. Diakonoff, a Professor whose theories have been distorted by pan-Turkists in his The Paths of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp 100 : Turiya/Turan (based on original Russian edition) was one of the nomadic Iranian tribes mentioned in the Avesta. However, in Firdousi’s poem, and in the later Iranian tradition generally, the term Turan is perceived as denoting ‘lands inhabited by Turkic speaking tribes.

According to Prof. Mary Boyce, in the Farvardin Yasht "In it (verses 143-144) are praised the fravashis of righteous men and women not only among the Aryas (as the “Avestan” people called themselves), but also among the Turiyas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis; and the personal names, like those of the people, all seem Iranian character". (M. Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism. 3V. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. (Handbuch Der Orientalistik/B. Spuler)). 

Furthermore, Asgharzadeh has displaced the meaning of some Avesta verses.  For example Yasht 9:18 states:

“'Grant me this boon, O good, most beneficent Drvaspa! that I may bind the Turanian murderer Franghrasyan, that I may drag him bound, that may bring him bound unto king Husravah, that king Husravah may kill him, behind the Chaechasta lake, the deep lake of salt waters, to avenge the murder of his father Syavarshana, a man, and of Aghraeratha, a semi-man.'”

That is Kavi Husravah (Kay Khusraw) takes revenge for his father Syavarshana (Siyavash) who was killed by the Turanian murderer Franghrasyan (later to be identified with Afrasiyab).  But at the same time, Asgharzadeh overlooks the fact that in the Yasht

Also in the Yashts, some of the Turanians, specially of the Frayana clan are seen as believers.

http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt5sbe.htm

 

“80. 'Offer up a sacrifice, O Spitama Zarathushtra! unto this spring of mine, Ardvi Sura Anahita.... 81. 'To her did Yoishta, one of the Fryanas, offer up a sacrifice with a hundred horses, a thousand oxen, ten thousand lambs on the Pedvaepa of the Rangha. 82. 'He begged of her a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura Anahita! that I may overcome the evil-doing Akhtya, the offspring of darkness, and that I may answer the ninety-nine hard riddles that he asks me maliciously, the evil-doing Akhtya, the offspring of darkness." 83. 'Ardvi Sura Anahita granted him that boon, as he was offering up libations, giving gifts, sacrificing, and entreating that she would grant him that boon.
'For her brightness and glory, I will offer her a sacrifice....”

Indeed in the Yashts, the spirits of the believers of the Indo-Iranian groups Airya, Turiya,  Sairmi, Saini and Dahi are praised and remembered.   For example a portion of the Farwardin Yasht:

http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt13sbe.htm

143. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Aryan countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Aryan countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Turanian countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Turanian countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Sairimyan countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Sairimyan countries. 144. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Sairimyan countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Saini countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Dahi countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Dahi countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in all countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in all countries.

We worship all the good, awful, beneficent Fravashis of the faithful, from Gaya Mareta [Gayomard] down to the victorious Saoshyant. May the Fravashis of the faithful come quickly to us! May they come to our help!

 

Interestingly enough the Farwardin Yasht also mentions Atro-Pata

 

“We worship the Fravashi of the holy Atare-pata;”

 

It is not clear if the Yasht is referring to the Persian Satrap Atropat whose name is the root of the name “Azerbaijan”.  We shall discuss Atropat in a later section. 

 

Asgharzadeh then falsely claims:

  “Like any other religious book, the Avesta contains stories, heroes, and villains. And like any other text, the heroes of the Avesta are drawn from the tales, legends, stories, and actual struggles that characterize all human societies. In the original text of Avesta, as well as in the section known as the Gaths, it appears that Zarathustra has carefully chosen his legends, heroes, and villains from the existing narratives among various races. From the Gaths we can see that the original text has not given preference to any particular race in terms of selecting their legends and heroes. Not only are the names of heroes equally selected from the legends of various races, but more importantly they have been molded into the story in a nonracial fashion; we can see a mixture of heroes from various races fighting side by side against a variety of villains from different races, including the race of heroes in the opposing camp. There are both heroes and villains from each and every one of the races on the side of both good and bad.  However, with the doctoring of the original Avesta and the introduction of Yashts into it, the impartial picture fundamentally changes to the advantage of Aryan/Indo-European elements, where members of non-Aryan races become divs, demons, villains, and supporters of darkness.”

 

Again Asgharzade’s misuse of the word race all over the place shows a sign of unscholarly writing if not paranoia.  In the Avesta, there is nothing about other races, tales, legends, stories.  Only Indo-Iranian tribes are mentioned.  The Gathas are mainly prayers of Zarathustra and do not have legends and villains.  The names of the heroes of Gathas are not from various races, they are all Iranian names: Jamaspa, Vishtasapa..  All the names in the Gathas have Indo-Iranian (Aryan) etymology.  Also no where do non-Aryan people become Div.  Div were deities and not people.  People can be compared to having Daemonic thoughts and Div-worshippers but the concept of Div/Daemon is that of a super natural deity unrelated to normal humans.  Also Asgharzadeh has used terms like Aryan Race, Persian Race and etc., but later on he expresses the modern scholarly opinion that race and language are not necessarily the same.  What is interesting is that when it suits his purpose, in order to display the usual melodramatic, emotional and non-scientific nature of his book, Asgharzade users the term race.  So as we can see, Asgharzadeh makes up history as he wishes!

Ferdowsi, Shahnameh and Pan-Turkism

 

Like any other pan-Turkist, Asgharzadeh has a problem with the Shahnameh.  In fact in a recent interview, he called the Shahnameh “mumbo-jumbo” (this seems to be one of Asgharzadeh’s faviorate words although as shown so far, his book is nothing but mumbo-jumbo).  Asgharzadeh then continues:

 

“Many Persian nation­alists and even scholars have considered the epos as the document of Iranians' national identity (Meskoob, 1992). The word Shahnameh literarily means the Book of Kings. Its theme is an imaginary story of Fars/Persian race and its rulers, from the very beginning up to the Islamic-Arabic overthrow of the Sasanid dynasty in the seventh century.”

 

Of course, many scholars and Iranian nationalists consider the shahnameh as a proof of Iranian national identity.  What is interesting is that the name Azerbaijan and most important cities in Iran occurs in the Shahnameh.  But we do not see the word Iran or Azerbaijan in the Oghuz epic of Dede Qorqod.  Also more interestingly, Asgharzadeh users the word Persia/Fars race.  The misuse of the word race through out the book simply shows the inconsistency of Asgharzade’s theories.  In some places he admonishes equating race with language (for example Aryan race) and in other places he uses them equivalently.  Nevertheless, it should be noted that Shahnameh is the national epic of all Iranians and not just Persian speakers.  It has important place for example amongst the Baluch, Talysh, Gilaks and Kurds and many other Iranian groups.  Safavid kings patronized it.  The Seljuqs patronized it.  It has had a tremendous effect on other cultures.   For example, Georgian culture has been enriched by the Shahnameh.  (See: Encyclopedia Iranica, “Shahnama Translations in Georgian”).

 

Or for other examples:

 

Shahnameh in the Kurdish and Armenian oral 

Victoria Arakelova

A Baluchi Text, with Translations and Notes

Part I

Part II

Josef Elfenbein

BSOAS, Vol. 24, No. 1

 

 

The Guran

V. Minorsky

 

 

بررسی کتاب شاهنامه لکی

دکتر جلال خالقی مطلق

این کتاب به کوشش دکتر ایزدپناه گردآوری و تحصیح و ترجمه شده است

 

نخستین سند ادبی ارتباط آذربایجان و شاهنامه

سجاد آیدئلو

 

 

 

Indeed to fight pan-Turkist chavaunism and anti-Iranism that is espoused by the likes of Alireza Nazmi Afshar, Elchibey, Asgharzadeh, Chehregani and other pan-Turkists, the symbol of Kawa (Kaveh) of the Iranian tradition is a powerful device used by Kurds of Turkey. 

 

Asgharzadeh then continues:

“From a historical viewpoint, perhaps the most salient defect of the book is the absence of Median, Achaemenian, and Ashkanian kings (see also Yarshater, 1985).  In effect, with the exception of some allusions to the Sasanid kings, particularly the last of them, Yazdgerd, the names and events depicted in the book bear no resemblance to peoples, histories, and stories of the Iranian Plateau. Despite this, it has played a most important role in the construction of a national identity for the Persians, an identity that has masqueraded as the national identity of all Iranians, regardless of their different ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds.”

 

 

First it should be noted that Ferdowsi used as his main primary source (there were other minor sources, some even from the Islamic era) the Middle Persian Khutaynama and its Modern Persian (Dari-Persian) translations.  But furthermore it should be noted that what Asgharzadeh is claiming above is not true.  For example the Parthian Kings are mentioned in the Shahnameh and are part of Iran’s national heritage.  Similarly some of the Achaemenid kings are mentioned.  On the Medians there is strong evidence as well.   Before providing sufficient evidence with this regard, it should be noted that approximately 40% of the Shahnameh is about Sassanid Kings.  And Asgharzadeh is completely wrong and totally mistaken when he says “except some allusions to the Sassanid Kings”.  The Sassanid kings ruled Iran for 400 years and part of the common identity of the Iranian nation is their common history and the Sassanid Kings embody that common history by nurturing a united and powerful Iran.  The Sassanid Persian stories of Khusraw o Shirin (which the pseudo-scholar like Asgharzadeh and Shaffer like to claim it is Turkish) is a good example.  The Persian poet (of Kurdish mother and Persian father) Nezami Ganjavi writes about Ferdowsi:

 

و نظامی گنجوی گوید: سخن گوی پیشینه دانای طوس// که آراست روی سخن چون عروس//

 

Indeed three of the five stories of Nezami Ganjavi are from Ferdowsi’s book, but more romanticized.  Nezami alludes to Ferdowsi’s old age when he compiled and poetized these stories from the existing Perso-Iranic traditions.   The other two jewls of Nezami Ganjavi are Lili o Majnoon, an Arabian story that was Persianized through Nezami Ganjavi.  This story was composed for the Persianized Shervanshahs who were originally of Arabic origin.  Nezami Ganjavi also sends his son to be taken care by the Shervanshahs and advises his son and Shervanshahs son to read the Shahnameh.  (See for example: Layli and Majnun: Love, Madness and Mystic Longing, Dr. Ali Asghar Seyed-Gohrab, Brill Studies in Middle Eastern literature, Jun 2003).  The other story of Nezami Ganjavi is the Makhzan al-Asrar which contains about 20 or so moral poems modeled after the Hadiqa of the Persian poet Sana’i.

 

Amongst the stories most influenced by the Shahnameh is the Sassanid Persian story of Khusraw o Shirin.  This was apparantely Nezami Ganjavi’s faviorate story as he testifies:

 

حدیث خسرو و شیرین نهان نیست

وزان شیرینتر الحق داستان نیست

Translation:

The story of Khusraw o Shirin is well known

And by truth! There is not a sweeter story than it

 

 

The tremendous influence of Khusraw o Shirin, a Persian-Sassanid story which had wide implications in the eastern Islamic during the Islamic era is well known.

 

Or for example, we can see how the Ottomons addressed the Ak-Koyunlu Turkmen tribes who took control of Iran.

 

In letters from the Ottomon Sultans, when addressing the the kings of Ak koyunlu, such titles as ''Malak al-Molook al-Iraniyyah'' (King of kings of Iran), ''Sultan Salatin Iraniyyah''(Sultan of Sultans of Iran), ''Shahanshah Iran Khadiv ajam'' (King of Kings of Iran and the Ruler of Persias), ''Jamshid Shawkat wa Fereydoon Raayat wa daaraa deraayat'' (Powerful like Jamshid]], Flag of Fereydun and Wise like Darius have been used. (See: Seyyed Ali Mua’yyad Sabeti, “Asnaad o Naameh-aayeh Tarikhi az Avael Dorrehaayeh Eslali taa Avakher ‘Ahd Shah Ismail Safavi”(historical sources and letters from the beginning of the Islamic era till the end of the era of Shah Ismail Safavi), Tehran , Ketabkhaayeh Tahoori, 1366. pages 193, 274, 315, 330, 332, 422 and 430. '''See also:''' Abdul Hussein Navai, Asnaad o Mokatebaat Tarikhi Iran (Historical sources and letters of Iran), Tehran , Bongaah Tarjomeh and Nashr-e-Ketab, 2536, pages 578,657, 701-702 and 707).

 

It should be remembered that even Turkic dynasties like Ghaznavids and Seljuqids claimed descent from them.  The Safavids, who were originally Kurdish but became Turcophones and the Ottomons also patronized it.

 

Now that the influence of Sassanid Iran, which constitutes 40% of the Shahnameh and what historians call the historical porition of the Shahnameh (as opposed to the mythical portion) was demonstrated,  implications in the eastern Islamic during the Islamic era is well known.  It was also demonstrated that Shahnameh, not only in standard Persian but also in Luri, Kurdish, Baluchi, Armenian, Georgian and etc. is very popular.  The other 60% percent of the Shahnameh is history and myths mixed.  Scholars have clearly shown that some of the myths of the Shahnameh indeed are from the Parthian, Achaemenid and perhaps even Median era.  It is not our purpose to exhaust such sources, but just to provide sufficient evidence.

 

 

 

Let us work backward here.  On the Ashkaniyan, Ferdowsi has named some of their kings accurately (it should be noted that even today we do not have 100% accurate list of Parthian kings), and has named their ancestor Arash correctly.  Arash or Arsaces is the eponymous founder of the Arsacid (Ashkaniyan/Parthian) dynasty.   Ferdowsi (unlike what Asgharzadeh claims) clearly alludes to them and mentions many of the name of Parthian kings correctly, but at the same time, he mentions that his source (mainly the Khutaynama) did not contain too much information.

 

 

 

سوی گاه اشکانیان بازگرد

کنون ای سراینده فرتوت مرد

 

که گوینده یاد آرد از باستان

چه گفت اندر آن نامه‌ی راستان

 

چه گوید کرا بود تخت مهان

پس از روزگار سکندر جهان

 

کزان پس کسی را نبد تخت عاج

چنین گفت داننده دهقان چاچ

 

دلیر و سبکسار و سرکش بدند

بزرگان که از تخم آرش بدند

 

گرفته ز هر کشوری اندکی

به گیتی به هر گوشه‌یی بر یکی

 

ملوک طوایف همی خواندند

چو بر تختشان شاد بنشاندند

 

تو گفتی که اندر زمین شاه نیست

برین گونه بگذشت سالی دویست

 

برآسود یک چند روی زمین

نکردند یاد این ازان آن ازین

 

که تا روم آباد ماند به جای

سکندر سگالید زین‌گونه رای

 

دگر گرد شاپور خسرو نژاد

نخست اشک بود از نژاد قباد

 

چو بیژن که بود از نژاد کیان

ز یک دست گودرز اشکانیان

 

چو آرش که بد نامدار سترگ

چو نرسی و چون اورمزد بزرگ

 

خردمند و با رای و روشن‌روان

چو زو بگذری نامدار اردوان

 

ببخشید گنجی با رزانیان

چو بنشست بهرام ز اشکانیان

 

که از میش بگسست چنگال گرگ

ورا خواندند اردوان بزرگ

 

که داننده خواندش مرز مهان

ورا بود شیراز تا اصفهان

 

که تنین خروشان بد از شست اوی

به اصطخر بد بابک از دست اوی

 

نگوید جهاندار تاریخشان

چو کوتاه شد شاخ و هم بیخشان

 

نه در نامه‌ی خسروان دیده‌ام

کزیشان جز از نام نشنیده‌ام

 

We can note that not only Ferdowsi has mentioned the epopynmous ancestos of the Parthians, but has name some of their kings accurately: Gotarzes and Artavan.

Another important point to consider is that many stories of the Shahnameh are actually from the Parthian era.  For example the famous story of Bizhan and Manizha. 

 

بيژن و منيژه و ويس و رامين

مقدمه اي بر ادبيات پارتي و ساساني

جلال خالقي مطلق

Professor. Vladimir Minorsky also has clearly demonstrated that the Parthians were not forgotten in the national memory of the Iranian people.  Minorsky demonstrated in a series of cogent articles (1943-1946, 1947-1948, 1954, 1962) that the narrative is almost certainly Parthian (see ARSACIDS) in origin. His evidence for this is drawn primarily from the poem's geography and the names of its characters.  (“Vis o Ramin”, Encyclopedia Iranica, Dick Davis http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp6/ot_vis_o_ramin_20050106.html).

Also the legends of the main heroe of the Shahnameh, that is Rostam, has been identified by many Iranian and Western historians to be derived from General Surena of the Parthiaan era.  Weather correct or not,

So we can see that the Parthians have been aludded to and actually mythified in the Shahnameh.  Despite the fact that every new dynasty in the middle east de-emphasized the previous dynasty,  Parthian myths and legends (Bizhan and Manija, parts of the legends of Rostam) and the name of their kings and epopynmous founder is mentioned in the Shahnameh. 

 

As the Shahnameh traces back in history, the percentage of myths and ther interwinment with history increases.  It should be noted that many myths though have been developed from history and other myths have been developed to encourage and enshrine moral lessons.  Some of the myths of the Shahnameh, for example those of Jamshid goes back to Avesta or even Indo-Iranian times.  Jamshid has been identified with Yima in the Rig-Veda tradition.

Let us now discuss the Shahnameh, Medes and Achaemenids.  Some Achaemenids kings have been mentioned explicitly while the stories of others have been mythified and embodied in the mythical figures of the Shahnameh.   The names of three Achaemenid kings are mentioned in the Shahnameh.  Artaxerxes I and Dara and Dara Darayan (Darius the III).  Indeed, it is very interesting that Artaxerxes I title was Marocheir in Greek, Longimanus in Latin and Deraz Dast in Persian.  All three titles mean “long hand”.  Ferdowsi, calls Bahman the son of Isfandyar by the title Ardeshir –e- Deraz Dast and the Bahman is the ancestor of the last Darius I.  Thus we can see how myths and legends were mixed.

On Cyrus the great for example, Biruni and many other historians have identified him with the legendary KayKhusraw. 

The late Polish professor Wladislaw Duleba completed his Ph.D. dissertation (defended in 1979, published in 1995 long after his death in 1987) concerning the Cyrus Legend in the Shahnama:Wladislaw Duleba; Polska Akademia Nauk Oddzial w Krakowie, Prace Komisji Orientalistyeznej Nr. 22, Krakow.

The book consists of two parts: the first part is about the legend of Cyrus and the threads of the Shahnama, and the second part is about the heroes and countries which are mentioned in this epical work. The author’s way of analysing is to compare the classical, mainly Greek sources with the stories and fragments of the Shahnama, which are the same or are very close to the Greek versions. The comparison is based on Herodotos’ book on the Greek-Persian war, which contains a great deal of information about Cyrus’ legendary life, wars and reign. The dissertation in chronological order from “the childhood and youth of Cyrus” to “the Babylon campaign” including the dream of Astyages, “the war for Persian liberation”, “the defeat of Astyages” and “the conquests of Cyrus”.

All these events’ counterparts the author seems to find in different chapters of the Shahnama. According to the author the chapter about “the childhood and yoputh of Cyrus” is called in the Shahnama “Seyâvash”, “the war for the Persian liberation” is called in the epic “Zahâk”, “Gershâsp”, “Kay Khusrô” and the chapter about Cyrus’ conquests is called “Kay Kâvus”, “Kay Khusrô”, and “Zahâk”.

Not deteriorating the author’s achievements we should bear in mind that the famous German scholar The Nöldeke’s work (Das iranische Nationalepos in: Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, II, Strassburg 1896-1904, 130-212) written a century ago led to similar results in these fields.

 

The Cyrus Legend in the Shahnama

Part I, II, III, IV, V

VI, VII, VIII, IX , X

 

The above book indefinitely confirms the fact that many aspects of the Shahnameh are tied to the Achaemenid and Mede era. 

One can mention Astyage which in Armenian sources has been identified with Azhi Dahaka of the Shahnameh.

Professor. Bivar has written about this in his famous article:

The Allegory of Astyages

A. D. H Bivar (1989)

In Aryan Kurdish tradition, Zahak is consider Assyrian.  Professor. Mario Levarani notes comments on the destruction of the Assyrian empire by the Medes“The enraged fury of the mountaineers that annihilated the Assyrian empire left space to fifty years of freedom on the Zargos highland.  Such a “revolution” could have left some traces in the Iranian traditions, and I will repeat here a suggestion that I have already advanced on the occasion of another conference (Liverani 2001, 374-377), by introducing in our debate the foundation legend of the Kurdish people, celebtrated every year in their Nowruz (New Year) festival.  As well known, the modern Kurds pretend to be descentants of the Medes. (Write of this response comment: Actually many serious scholars including Vladimir Minorsky and David Mackenzie have shown this connection through historical and linguistic sources)

The legend says that there was once a despotic and “satanic” king, Zohak by name, suffering from two tumours (in the shape of snakes) on his shoulders, and used to treat them with the daily application of two childeren’s bains.  The vizier in charge of the affair took pity on the children and let them (actually one out of two, every day) fly to the mountains, providing the king with a sheep brain instead.  On the mountaions, the children increased in number and gave origin to the Kurdish people.  Down in the city, Zohak continued his tyrranic rule, until a smith, Kawa by name, exasperated by the execution of his none sons by the tyrant, decided not to tolerate any longer, and to reacet.  He hoisted his working apron like a flag, summoned from the mountaions the escaped children, and all together they attacked the royal place, put fire on it, and killed the tyrant in its ruins.  This happened on March 21, which is the date of the Nowruz, in 612 BC, which is the date of the Median entrance into history, by their destruction of Ninveh.

 

“

Above all, the Kurdish legend is able to evoke the secular struggle between city and highlands, between empire and mountain tribes, the mountaineers’ desire to revolt and vengeance against the oppressive rule of the imperial palace, the persistent dream about a spring during which the oppressed people will finally come down with their refugees, punish the tyrant and proclaim freedom.  Such might have been the feelings of the Median tribes when they descendedAfter discussing the pro’s and the con’s of this theory, Professor. Liverani states: “…The most detailed treatment of the “foundation legend” of the Kurds is then recorded in the Sharafnameh, a Persian epic of the late 16th century, well before any modern knowledge about the Median destruction of the Assyrian empire.  Above all, the Kurdish legend is able to evoke the secular struggle between city and highlands between empire and mountain tribes, the mountaineers’ desire for revolt and vengeance against the oppressive rule of the imperial palace, the persistent dreams about a spring during which the oppressed people will finally come down from their refuge, punish the tyrant and proclaim freedom.  Such might have been the feeling of the Median tribes when they descended from the mountains in order to fight against the “empire of evil”.  On the other hand, it is not impossible that decisive event like the destruction of the Assyrian empire left some traces in the legendary Iranian corpus.”  ( The Rise and Fall of Media », in : G. B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, R. Rollinger, eds., Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia. Padova, S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria, 2003, pp. 1-12. )

Professor.  Wladislaw Duleba remarks:

“Is it possible at all to search for any historical data in an epos? Can one look for the truth in the accounts of such an epos as the Shahnameh which, before it finally crystallized in the work of Ferdousi, was emerging and transforming for hundreds of years in the oral tradition, was subjected to the change of language by the Middle Persian and New Persian editors of the prose records?

Still one could attempt a comparison of some of the plots of the Shahnameh with the relations of modern studies and with the work of Herodotus, the very first — and probably preserved to a large extent — crystallization of the Iranian epos.

"I could, if I wished, give three versions of Cyrus' history, all different from what follows; but I propose to base my account on those Persian authorities who seem to tell the simple truth about him without trying to exaggerate his exploits."

I. V. Piankov has reconstructed some of the plots of those stories on the basis of the accounts given not only by Herodotus, but also by Ctesias, Xenophon, Hellanicus, Diodor, Nicolaus of Damascus, Charon and Strabon. Piankov's studies corroborate the account of Herodotus who says that at least four versions of those stories existed in the oral tradition from the times of Cyrus. Piankov presents their partial reconstruction.

If we compare it with some of the plots which compose the first part of the Shahnameh (i.e. the chapters from Gamsid to Qang-e bozorg-e Kay Xosrow ba Afrasyab), we shall see that some of them agree in their main outline just with this version which Herodotus thought to be the truest one and that these threads recur in the epos with various changes, more than once.

Besides these diversified epic accounts of Cyrus, which already existed in the times of the later Achaemenidae (in the times of Herodotus and Ctesias) it is possible that some information was comprised in other, today nonexistent sources which were used by such authors of historical works as Tabari, Mas'udi and Tha'alibi.

While examining the relationships of the plots of the Shahnameh and history, we meet a number of basic difficulties.

1. Persian legends often contain contradictory accounts. This difficulty is easier to overcome if we remember a fairly obvious fact that the Shahnameh is

composed of a number of different stories, which originally were not connected at all. They were more like "ballads", created in various circumstances and undergoing various changes during the course of tradition.

 

2.  As Theodor Noldeke suggests, some figures of the Shahnameh were already known in Rigveda, from which one may conclude that they had been known in the Indo-Iranian tradition already before the Aryans arrived on the territory of the present-day Iran. However, at a closer examination, we may notice that in the Shahnameh they are either totally Iranian characters, like Feridun or Kay Kawus, only dressed up in the names from the world of Indo-Iranian myths, the names which have nothing to do with the royal power or with their history contained in the work of Ferdousi; or they are such figures like Zohak, in whose name some authors trace the name of Deiokes6 (Med. Daiaukku -f- Av. azi = Azi Dahaka), and who does not appear in Rigveda at all (there is only ahi there, simply a dragon).

 

3.  Legendary, or prehistoric — according to some claims — rulers and dynasties known to us from, among others, the Avesta and the Shahnameh appear in the works of some historians next to truly historical characters. According to Biruni, for instance, the Chaldeans were "the Kayanians' deputees in Baby­lon"; according to BaFami Nebuchadnezzar was given "Syria, Yemen and the whole West" by Luhrasf, the king of Balx; Gostasp sent a general called Kures to Iraq and Babylon, which were the seat of Nebuchadnezzar, and ordered him to send Nebuchadnezzar back to Balx; in the time of Bahman, a kinglet of Balx, Nebuchadnezzar collected an army of fifty thousand men and took three wise men with him (whom he made his visiers): Darius the son of Mehri, Kirus the son of Aikun and Ahaswerus the son of Kirus.

 

4.  Historical improbabilities (for instance, it is not difficult to count that the two beautiful daughters of Jamshid were over a thousand years old when Feridun married them; Rostam lived over six hundred years) suggest poetic hyperbole, or a symbolic meaning of these characters, or — maybe — that some events were presented several times in the epos, as successive ones.

 

5.  The identification of some geographical names, such as Barbar (or Berber, Barber), Mazanderan, Dev-e Safid, Gang, presents similar difficulties. Some of them seem mythical and it is not known whether they ever referred to any definite places (e.g. Dev-e Safid), some (like Barbar), bringing association to a particular nation, may lead to far fetched hypotheses. Others still, like Mazanderan, create particular difficulties because of the discrepancies between their reality and the relations about them in the Shahnameh.

 

Thus, since the occurence in the Shahnameh of both mythological elements and historical evidence is a fact, the historical evidence being often an account of several distant epochs at a time, we must realize, possibly clearly, the mechanism of the origin of particular stories.

It is not difficult to imagine that at the news of some important event (a war expedition to distant countries, the death of a hero) a primitive creator took up a tale. And as some elements of the episode he extolled were incomprehensible to him, he chose to interprete them by means of myths, which had shaped his philosophy of life, like a weaver who entwines colourful wefts around the warp, he entwined the stories he had heard with myths. As the song spread around the world, new perforrners, never lacking creative inventiveness, embellished it with new interpretation of new events — the heroes often achieved superhuman qualities and their names, forgotten or simply meaning very little to the singers, were substituted by new ones, closer to the people's imagination. It was only later that the songs were joined into cycles. And then, already learned editors and poets composed them into work in which they wanted to present the nation's history. In this way the progenitor of a cruel dynasty could get a dragon's name and a dragon's face, a hero could take the shape of a god of victory and a subjugated river — of a defeated enemy...

As to analyse the plots of the epos which bring to mind some of the events from the epoch of Cyrus the Great, I have decided to divide this work into two parts.

The first one, The Legend and History of Cyrus and the Threads of the Shahnameh, presents a comparison of the episodes from Cyrus' life as recorded by Herodotus on the basis of what he gathered from Persian legends, supplemen­ted by the facts known from history, with some of the plots of the Shahnameh.

The second part, The Heroes and Countries of the Shahnameh and the Legend of Cyrus, is an attempt to elucidate the origin of some of the names refering to people and places in comparison with historical sources, as well as to criticize some of those hypotheses.

(Wladislaw Duleba , The Cyrus Legend in the Shahnama) also available at:

The Cyrus Legend in the Shahnama

Part I, II, III, IV, V

VI, VII, VIII, IX , X

 

On Cyrus the Great and the fact that some ancient historians (See Biruni’s list) have identified him Key Khusraw, Professor Duleba writes:

“Comparison between both these lists contained in the work of Biruni and in the account of Balami'(cf. General assumptions, p. 10) with the list prepared on the basis of the data taken from the Avesta, from some Pahlavi sources and from the works of Tabari and Ferdousi proves that in the 10 century A. D., even the names of Achaemenidae were not utterly forgotten but in the consciousness of the many were substituted by the names known from the tradition.”

 

 

 

 

It is not only Abu Rayhan Biruni, who 1000 years ago identified Cyrus with the legendacy KeyKhusraw, but many aspects of the Keykhosraw story in the Shahnameh and their connection with Cyrus the Great have been observed by the Iranian expert on Shahnameh, Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq:

کيخسرو و کوروش

دکتر جلال خالقي مطلق

 

Thus not only the 40% Sassanid portion of the Shahnameh is about the shared Sassanid history of Iranians.  But some Parthian and Achaemenid kings have been named explicitly.  Furthermore, traces of Medes, Achaemenid and Parthian legends have obviously left deep strong imprint in the mythology sections of Shahnameh.  The Shahnameh, the national epic of Iranians is regarded highly not only by Iranians, but by many regional people.

Asgharzadeh continues his anti-Iranian diatribe:

“In composing the epic, Ferdowsi has been influenced by a group of "patrons" who have in effect sponsored the compilation of the Shahnameh. According to Ferdowsi, these patrons provided the stories for him and asked him to put the narratives in a rhyming, poetic format. In exchange for his labor, they promised to financially support him (Poorpirar, 2004, p. 7; see also Warner and Warner, 1905, pp. 108-112). Dismissing any claim lor originality and authenticity, Ferdowsi asserts that the story was compiled by others and all he had to do was to put it together in a poetic style. Completed on February 25, AD 1010, it took 30 years for Ferdowsi to complete the Shahnameh. The result was the glorification and superiorization of his own Persian race, culture, and language at the expense of non-Persian and non-Aryan races. How much of such Fars-centric narrative was the creation of Ferdowsi's fertile imagination and how much the demand of his patrons remains a subject of debate and controversy (Poorpirar, 2000, 2004).”

Unfortunately Asgharzadeh does not provide any real source as usual.  The unacademic conspiracy theories of Poorpirar are here at work.  According to Poorpirar, jews paid Ferdowsi money and gave him stories because he was a ble poet.  On the other hand real scholars know that the stories of the Shahnameh pre-date Ferdowsi.  Either matching the Shahnameh or diverging slightly, the stories of the Shahnameh have been recorded by Tabari, Al-Masudi, Avesta, Pahlavi and even Sogdian.  (The oldest mention of Rustam is actually in a Sogdian manuscript).  Ferdowsi, was completely conscious of these ancient sources and used sources such the Shahnameh of Abu Mansur (written in prose), the Shahnameh of Daqiqi (a Zoroastrian poet who died before Ferdowsi and Ferdowsi incorporated 1000 lines of his poetry in the Shahnameh) and the Pahlavi KhutayNama (either in the original or in translation).  The patrons of Ferdowsi were also local Khorasanians like Ali Deylami and Hossain Qutaib.  These are mentioned at the end of the Shahnameh. 

It should be noted that Ferdowsi embellished and poeticized the history of Iran known in his time.  As already discussed, some of the history had taken the form of myths and were Zoroastrian Aryan history and others were actual histories of native Iranian dynasties.  The mythical portion of the Shahnameh concerns mainly the two regions of Ariana and Sistan.  Ariana, as identified by Strabo is:

‘’ the name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations."(15:8)

 

Originally, Ariana (Aria) as mentioned in the Achaemenid inscriptions referred to a portion of Iran.  But by the Sassanid era, the name Ariana(Iran) was well extended to include all the domain of the Sassanids.  The ethnic name of Achaemenid, Medes, Scythians and etc. was also Arya/Aryan and this will be discussed further.  Alireza Asgharzadeh again uses the term “Persian Race” but when people talk about Nezhad Arya (Arian origin), he dismisses it as baloney.  Again this contradiction can be seen throughout his anti-Iranian book.   

As per originality, it should be noted that famous stories like Garshaspnama, Vis o Ramin, Haft Paykar, Khusraw o Shirin, Eskandarnama, Bizhan o Manizha, Yadgar-e-Zariran ..were part of the pre-Islamic culture of Iran.  But by preserving and immortalizing these into eloquent poetry with images, symbols and moral statements and advices, Persian poets such as Ferdowsi, Asadi Tusi, Nezami Ganjavi, Fakhr ad-din Asad Gorgani and others immortalized these Iranian stories.  It should be for example remembered that the story of Julius Caesar by Shakespear was not created by Shakespear.  But Shakespear made a play out of it and embellished it with symbols and imagery.  Ferdowsi too is proud of his Shahnameh as in the end he clearly states:

 

بناهای آباد گردد خراب            

ز باران و از تابش آفتاب
پی افکندم از نظم کاخی بلند      

 که از باد و باران نیابد گزند
برین نامه بر عمرها بگذرد     

بخواند هر آن کس که دارد خرد
بسی رنج بردم بدین سال سی    

عجم زنده کردم بدین پارسی
جهان کرده­ام ازسخن­چون­بهشت  

 از این بیش تخم سخن کس نکشت
چو این نامور نامه آمد به بن       

 ز من روی گیتی شود پر سُخُن
نمیرم از این پس که من زنده­ام       

که تخم سخن را پراکنده­ام
هرآن کس که دارد هـُش­و رای ­و دین  

پس از مرگ، بر من کند آفرین

 

Ferdowsi who started his composition of Shahnameh in the Samanid era, thanks two figures from his district.  Li Daylami and Hosayn Qotayb.   In the end he proclaims

 

 

I’ve reached the end of this great history

And all the landd will fill with talk of me:

I shall not die, these seeds I’ve sown will save

My name and reputatiom from the grave,

And men of sense and wisdom will proclaim,

When I have gone, my praises and my fame.

(Shahnameh, Viking Adult, a new translation by Dick Davis, 2006.)

 

 

There is really no controversy! about these facts except those in the very horrid imagination of Poorpirar and their pan-Turkist supports.  Also it should be remembered that Poorpirar has recently claimed that the Shahnameh can not be written before the Safavid era. 



اقای مهرپور کیانی! فردوسی و کتاب اش جعل جدید یهودیان در دوران پس از صفویه است و کم ترین اثر درستی از شاه نامه ی قبل از صفویه وجود ندارد.

Translation: Mr Mehrpur Kiyani! Ferdowsi and his book are new products of Jews that were written after Safavids and not  a single verifiable sample of Shahnameh does not exist before Safavids.

 

http://commenting.blogfa.com/?blogid=naria&postid=336&timezone=12642

 

It is very unfortunate for Asgharzadeh to rely on such hysterians as Poorpirar but pan-Turkists have no choice but to lie in order to belittle Iran, Persia and Iranian heritage which has defended itself against many foreign invaders and has brought culture upon them.

 

It would take too long to discuss Ferdowsi and the composition of Shahnameh in this article.  We refer the readers to the excellent articles of Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq:

 

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f4/v1f4a001.html

(“Abu Mansur Ma’Mari” in Encyclopedia Iranica by Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq)

 

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f5/v9f541.html

(“Ferdowsi” in Encyclopedia Iranica by Dr. Jalal Khaleghi Mutlaq)

 

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v9f5/v9f541b.html

(“Hajw-Nama” in Encyclopedia Iranica by A. Shapur Shahbazi)

 

 

 

The most interesting aspect of Asgharzade’s relationship with Shahnameh is that Asgharzadeh tries to interpret the Shahnameh through a narrow and aberrated pan-Turkist lense and make it seem like interpretation is realistic.  It is easy to show the simple folly of his interpretation:

“Ferdowsi's mythical history of the Persian race begins with the reign of Keyumers, the first king of imaginary "Pishdadiyan" dynasty. According to Ferdowsi, around the seventeenth century BC, Keyumers and his tribe lived on mountains. They were not familiar with the art of house building and dwelling on the ground. Nor did they know the art of dress making and clothing; they wore leopard skins:

The lord was Keyumers, who dwelt upon a mountain

There his throne and fortune rose

He and all his troops wore leopard-skins

Under him the learning began

For food and dress were new to them

(Ferdowsi, 1010/1960, p. 28; see also Warner and Warner, 1905, p. 118)

Thus, the founder of the first Indo-European-Persian civilization, who lived some 3,700 years ago upon a mountain, knew nothing of urban dwelling, clothing, agriculture, and so on (for a detailed account of this see Zehtabi, 1999, pp. 403-410)(pg 58).

“

 

First it should be noted that no where, absolutely no where does Ferdowsy say the date of Kiumarth is from 3700 years ago!  This lie created by Zehtabi/Asgharzadeh and ascribing of Kiumarth to 3700 years is not found in any historical text.  Having seen that their pan-Turkist narratives of history has no historical and archeological basis, the pan-Turkists have to avail themselves to the Shahnameh and interpret the stories through their imagination in order to falsify a history for themselves.  Again no where does Ferdowsi say Kiumarth lived 3700 years ago and no where does Ferdowsi identify him with the founder of Indo-European Persian civilization! 


Indeed in the post-Islamic tradition, Kiumarth is considered the first man.  The Dekhoda dictionary has given a very comprehensive testimony on the Giumarth myth .

 According to this dictionary, Giumarth is the first man in Zoroastrian tradition and the first and the first one to listen and understand the words of Ahura Mazda.  Hamza Esfahani, Masudi, Tabari and others have followed the Pahlavi tradition as well (see Dekhoda under گیومرث)

 

Also Asgharzadeh simply failed to convey the truth of Kiumarth’s story.  In the Shahnameh it is cleary stated:

“The first man to be king, and to establish ceremonies associared with the crown and throne, was Kayumars.  When he became lord of the world, he lived first in the mountains, where he established his throne, and he and his people dressed in leopard skins.  It was he who first taught men about the preparation of food and clothing, which were new in the world at that time.  Seated on his throne, as splendid as the sun, he reigned for thirty years.  He was like a tall cypress tree topped by the full moon, and the royal farr shone from him.  All the animals of the world, wild and tame alike, reverently paid homage to him, bowing down before his throne, and their obedience increased his glory and good fortune”

(Shahnameh, Viking Adult, a new translation by Dick Davis, 2006. pg 58)

 

Thus Kayumars (Kayumarth) was not only the first king, and (according to Zoroastrian tradition the first men), but according to Shahnameh, he was the one that first thought the preparation of food and clothing.  Thus unlike the mumbo-jumbo of Asgharzadeh, there is nothing about Persian or even Iran here and natives and non-natives and all the other convoluted pan-Turkist theories of Zehtabi/Asgharzadeh.

 

In order to understand the nature of Kiumarth, one has to go through the Avesta, Pahlavi, New Persian and Persian based Arabic texts.  The Encyclopedia Iranica has also given a brief overview of this mythical king who according to many Zoroastrian sources was the first man and also the first creature that learned and received messages from Ahuramazda.

 

The late Professor. Mansour Shaki has an article on Kiumarth. 

(“Gayomart” in Encyclopedia Iranica by Mansour Shaki http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v10f4/v10f411.html)

 

 

Jamshid who is after Kiumarth is well known in Indo-Iranian myths.  This Indo-Iranian myth was developed way before the Achaemenids came to power.  Asgharzadeh and other pan-Turkists, having seen that they can not deny the historical legitimacy and antiquity of the Iranian civilization have no choice but to blatantly misinterpret and distort the Shahnameh in order to make out a history for themselves.  Yet the same characters who always claim that Shahnameh should not be taken as history and in Asgharzadeh’s word: “In effect, with the exception of some allusions to the Sasanid kings, particularly the last of them, Yazdgerd, the names and events depicted in the book bear no resemblance to peoples, histories, and stories of the Iranian Plateau” and yet, in order to makeup history, he makes it seem like the Daemon deities in the Shahnameh represent native people of the land.  Where-as the word Div in as we saw denotes deities in the Indo-Iranian tradition who later became Daemons in the Avesta. 

 

Asgharzadeh continues with his illogical interpretation of the Shahnameh:

“In the whole world Keyumers had not an enemy

Except the ill-mannered wicked Ahriman He had a son too,

like a savage wolf Grown fearless, amongst great warriors

(Ferdowsi, 1010/1960, p. 28; see also Warner, p. 119)

The Lord Keyumers had no enemy, says Ferdowsi, except for the indigenous people and their ruler who dwelt on the ground and to whom Ferdowsi refers as Ahrimasns, divs, and demons. According to Ferdowsi, the demon ruler of the indigenous people had a son, just like Keyumers. The Lord Keyumers's son Siyamak comes down with his troops to destroy the Div's son:

He gathered troops, arrayed himself in leopard skin For he had no mail nor knew anything of the art of war

So here too we see that the son of "the Lord of World" had no clothing, no weaponry, and knew nothing of the art of war: 

 

 

When host met host the warrior challenged the div Siyamak came with neither uniform nor armors. And grappled with the son of the Demon That horrible Black Div clutched at Bent down that prince of lofty stature And rent him open. Thus died Siyamak. (Ferdowsi, 1010/1960p. 30; see also Warner, p. 120)

 

Hearing the news of Siyamak's death at the hands of "the Black Div," the Lord of the World Tehmuras comes to avenge the young demon prince:

The illustrious world-lord Tehmuras Advanced girt up for battle and revenge There were the roar of flame and reek of divs Here were the warriors of the lord of earth (Ferdowsi, 1010/1960, p. 37; see also Warner, p. 127)

Tehmuras defeats the demons and attempts to kill them. But the divs offer to teach Tehmuras newr knowledge in exchange for their lives:

The captives bound and stricken begged their lives

"Kill us not,7' they said

"And we will teach thee a new fruitful art"

(Ferdowsi, 1010/1960, p. 38; see also Warner, p. 127)

Tehmuras agrees:

He gave them quarter to learn their knowledge

When they were released they had to serve him

(Ferdowsi, 1010/1960, p. 38;

see also Warner, p. 127)

 

 

First we note the translation from Dick Davis on Kiumars, Siamak, Hushang and Jamshid.  The first four Pishdadian kings.

 

“The first man to be king, and to establish ceremonies associared with the crown and throne, was Kayumars.  When he became lord of the world, he lived first in the mountains, where he established his throne, and he and his people dressed in leopard skins.  It was he who first taught men about the preparation of food and clothing, which were new in the world at that time.  Seated on his throne, as splendid as the sun, he reigned for thirty years.  He was like a tall cypress tree topped by the full moon, and the royal farr shone from him.  All the animals of the world, wild and tame alike, reverently paid homage to him, bowing down before his throne, and their obedience increased his glory and good fortune”

 

 

 

“He (Kayumars) had a hondsome son, who was wise and eafer for fame, like his father.  His name was Siamak, and Kayumars loved him with all his heart.  The sight of his son was the one thing in the world that made him happy, and his love for the boy made him weep when he thought of their being separated. 

 

Siamak grew into a fine young man, and had no enemies, except for Ahriman, who was secretly jealous of his splendor and looked for ways to humble him.  Ahriman had a son who was like a savage wolf; this fearless yought gathered an army together, spread seidition throughout the world, and prepared to attack the king. 

 

 

Siamak Is Killed by the Black Demon

 

Kayumars was unaware of these machinations, but the angel Sorush appeared before Siamak in the guise of a magical being swathed in a leopard skin, and told him of the plots against his father. The prince s heart seethed with fury and he gathered an army together. There was no armor at that time, and the prince dressed for war in a leopard skin. The two armies met face to face, and Siamak strode forward to attack, but the black demon sunk his claws into the princes unprotected body and stretched the noble Siamak in the dust.

 

Now in the dirt he laid the king's son low,

 Clawed at his gut, and struck the fatal bow.

So perished Siamak—a demon's hand

Left leaderless his people and his land.

 

 

When the king heard of his son's death, his world darkened with sorrow. He descended from the throne, weeping and beating his head, and scoring his royal flesh in an agony of distress. His face was smeared with blood, his heart was in mourning, and his days were killed with sorrow. The army was arrayed before the king, and a cry of grief went up from its ranks. Everyone wore blue as a sign of mourning, and all the animals, wild and tame alike, and the birds of the air, gathered and made their way weeping and crying to the mountains, and the dust sent up by the throng of mourners hovered in the air above the king s court.

 

They mourned for a year, until the glorious Sorush brought a message from God, saying, "Kayumars, weep no more, but be of sound mind again. Gather an army together and fight against this malevolent demon." The king turned his weeping face toward the heavens and prayed to the great god that evil strike those who think evil. Then he prepared to avenge the death of Siamak, neither sleeping at night nor pausing to eat in the day.

 

Hushang and Kayumars Fight Against the Black Demon

 

The great Siamak had a son, Hushang, who acted as his grandfathers advisor. This splendid youth seemed compounded of intelligence and courtliness. Kayumars lovingly brought him up as his own son, because Hushang reminded him of Siamak, and he had eyes for no one else. When his heart was set on war and vengeance he summoned Hushang  and laid before him his plans and secrets. He said, "I shall gather an army together and raise a cry of lamentation in the demons' ranks. You must command these warriors, since my days are numbered and you must be the new leader." He gathered together fairies, leopards and lions, savage wolves and fearless tigers, birds and domestic animals, and this army was led by the intrepid young prince. Kayumars was in the rear, his grandson Hushang in the van. The black demon came fearlessly forward, and the dust of his forces rose into the heavens, but the king's fury and the wild animals' magnificence rendered the demons' claws harmless. When the two groups met, the demons were defeated by the animals; like a lion, Hushang caught the black demon in his grip, cleaving his body in two and severing his monstrous head. He laid him low in the dust and flayed his wretched body of its skin.

 

When Kayumars had achieved the vengeance he desired, his days came to an end, and the world was deprived of his glory.

 

You will not find another who has known

The might of Kayumars and his great throne.

The world was his while he remained alive,

He showed men how to prosper and to thrive:

But all this world- is like a tale we hear—

Men's evil, and their glory, disappear.

 

 

The Reign of Hushang

 

 

The just and prudent Hushang was now master of the world, and he set the crown on his head and ruled in his grandfather's place. He reigned for forty years, and his mind was filled with wisdom, his heart with justice. Sitting on the royal throne, he said, "From this throne I rule over the seven climes, and everywhere my commands are obeyed." Mindful of God's will, he set about establishing justice. He helped the world flourish, and filled the face of the earth with his just rule.

 

The Discovery of Fire and the Establishment of the Feast of Sadeh

 

One day the king was riding toward the mountains with a group of companions when something long, and black suddenly appeared.  Its two eyes were like bowls of blood affixed to its head, and smoke billowed from its mouth, darkening the world.  Hushang considered carefully, then grasped a rock and flung it with all his royal strength at the beast, which flickered aside, so that the rock struck against stony ground and shattered. From the collision of the two stones a spark leaped out, and the rocks heart glowed with fire. The snake was not killed, but the fiery nature of flint was discovered, so that whenever anyone struck it with iron, sparks flashed forth. Hushang gave thanks to God that he had given this gift of fire, and from that time forth men prayed toward fire.  When night came Hushang and his companions made a mountain of fire and circumambulated it. They had a feast that night, and drank wine. The feast was named "Sadeh" and is Hushang's legacy to us.

 

Then he took ore in his fist, and with fire he separated iron from its rocky home. In this way he created the blacksmiths craft, fashioning maces, axes, saws, and hatchets. Then he turned his attention to irrigation, bringing water from lakes to the plains by means of channels and canals, and so using his royal farr to lessen men's labor. In this way he increased the land available for agriculture and the harvest, so that each man could grow grain for his own bread and know the fruits of his own toil.

 

Hushang used his God-given royal authority to separate animals into those that are wild and can be hunted, like onager and deer, and those suitable for domestic use, like cows, sheep, and donkeys. He killed animals with fine pelts, like foxes and ermine, the soft squirrel, and the sable, whose fur is so warm, and had fine clothes made from them. Hushang toiled and spread justice, and consumed his due of the world's goods, and then departed, leaving behind nothing but his good name. In his time he struggled mightily, planning and inventing innumerable schemes, but when his days were at an end, for all his sagacity and dignity, he departed. The world will not keep faith with you, nor will she show you her true face.

 

The Reign of Tahmures

 

Hushang had an intelligent son, Tahmures, who was called "the Binder of Demons." He sat on his father's throne and swore to preserve the customs his father had instituted. He called his wise counselors to him and spoke eloquently with them, saying, "Today the throne and crown, the treasury and army, are mine; with my wisdom I shall cleanse the world of evil. I shall restrict the power of demons everywhere and make myself lord of the world. Whatever is useful in the world I will reveal and make available to mankind."

 

Then he sheared sheep and goats and spun their wool into fibers, from which he fashioned clothes; he also taught men how to weave carpets.  He had flocks fed on grass, straw, and barley, and from among wild animals he selected the lynx and cheetah, bringing them in from the mountains and plains and confining them, to train them as hunters. He also chose hawks and falcons, and hens and roosters, who crow at dawn, and showed men how to tame these birds by treating them well and speaking gently to them. He brought out the hidden virtues of things, and the world was astonished at his innovations. He said that men should praise God, who  had given mankind sovereignty over the earth's animals.

 

Tahmures had a noble vizier named Shahrasb, a man whose thoughts avoided all evil and who was universally praised.  Fasting by day and praying by night, he was the king's star of good fortune, and the souls of the malevolent were under his control. Shahrasb wished the king's reign to be just, and he guided him in righteous paths, so that Tahmures lived purified of all evil and the divine farr emanated from him.  The king bound Ahriman by spells and sat on him, using him as a mount on which to tour the world.  When the demons saw this, many of them gathered in groups and murmured against him, saying the crown and farr were no longer his. But Tahmures learned of their sedition and attacked them, breaking their rebellion.  He girded himself with God's glory and lifted his heavy mace to his shoulders, ready for battle.

All the demons and sorcerers came together in a great army, with the black demon as their leader, and their roars ascended to the heavens.  But Tahmures suddenly confronted them, and the war did not last long; two-thirds of the demons he subdued by spells, and the other third by his heavy mace. He dragged them wounded and in chains in the dust, and they pleaded for their lives, saying, "Don't kill us, we can teach you something new and highly profitable." The king granted them their lives on condition that they reveal their secrets to him, and when he had freed them from their chains they had no choice but to obey him. They taught the king how to write, and his heart glowed like the sun with this knowledge. They did not teach him just one script, but almost thirty, including the Western, Arab, and Persian ways of writing, as well as the Soghdian, Chinese, and Pahlavi, showing him how the letters are formed and pronounced. For thirty years the king performed these and other noble actions; then his days were at an end and he departed, and the memory of his struggles was his memorial.

 

The Reign of Jamshid

 

All mourned when the Binder of Demons died. But his splendid son, Jamshid, his heart filled with his father's precepts, then prepared to reign. He sat on his father's throne, wearing a golden crown according to royal custom. The imperial farr was his. The world submitted to him; quarrels were laid to rest, and all demons, birds, and fairies obeyed Jamshid's commands. The royal throne shone with his luster, and the wealth of the world increased. He said, "God's glory is with me; I am both prince and priest. I hold evildoers back from their evil, and I guide souls toward the light."

 

First he turned his attention to weapons of war, and he opened the way to glory for his warriors. His royal farr softened iron, and his able mind taught men how to fashion helmets, chain mail, cuirasses, swords, and barding for horses. Occupied in this way for fifty years, he laid up stores of weapons. For another fifty years he gave his mind to the making of clothes for both feasting and fighting, using linen, silk, and wool, and fashioning fine stuffs and brocades from them. He taught the arts of spinning and weaving, dyeing and sewing. The world rejoiced in his reign, and he too rejoiced.

 

Then he spent fifty years gathering the men of different professions about him. He separated those whose business is prayer and worship, assigning the mountains to them as their dwelling place. Next he drew up ranks of men who carry lances, the lion-warriors who give splendor to their army and country, who are the throne's support and from whom a man's good reputation comes. The third group were those who work in the fields, sowing and reaping, and receiving no man's thanks, although no one reproaches them when it is time to eat. They are free men and quarrel with no one, and the world flourishes through their labor. As a sage once said, "It's only laziness that will make a slave of a free man." The fourth group were the men who work with their hands at various crafts and trades; they are contumacious people, and their hearts are always filled with anxiety. Jamshid spent fifty years arranging these matters, so that each man was aware of his appropriate duties and knew his own worth and rank.

 

 

Then he ordered the demons to mix clay and water and pack the mixture into molds for bricks. They made foundations of stone and plaster; then, using the science of geometry, they made the superstructure with bricks. In this way they built public baths and castles, and palaces that are a refuge against misfortune. He spent time extracting brilliant jewels and precious metals from rock, and so came into the possession of rubies, amber, gold, and silver. He used magic to solve the mysteries of how this could be done. He introduced the use of perfumes like benzoin, camphor, musk, sandalwood, ambergris, and rosewater, and he discovered cures for illnesses, showing men the way to good health. He revealed all these secrets, and the world had never known such an inquirer into her mysteries as he was. Next he turned his attention to water and ships, and so was able to travel quickly from country to country. Another fifty years passed in these labors, and nothing remained hidden from his wisdom.

 

The Festival of No-Ruz

 

Although Jamshid had accomplished all these things, he strove to climb even higher. With his royal farr he constructed a throne studded with gems, and had demons raise him aloft from the earth into the heavens; there he sat on his throne like the sun shining in the sky. The world's creatures gathered in wonder about him and scattered jewels on him, and called this day the New Day, or No-Ruz. This was the first day of the month of Farvardin, at the beginning of the year, when Jamshid rested from his labors and put aside all rancor. His nobles made a great feast, calling for wine and musicians, and this splendid festival has been passed down to us, as a memorial to Jamshid. Three hundred years went by, and death was unknown during that time; men knew noth¬ing of sorrow or evil, and the demons were their slaves. The people obeyed their sovereign, and the land was filled with music. Years passed, the royal fan radiated from the king, and all the world was his to command.

 

Jamshid surveyed the world, and saw none there

Whose greatness or whose splendor

could compare With his: and he who had known God became

Ungrateful, proud, forgetful of God's name.

 

 

He summoned his army commanders and aged advisors and said, "I know of no one in the world who is my equal. It was I who introduced the skills and arts of living to mankind, and the royal throne has seen no one to compare with me. I arranged the world as I wished; your food and sleep and security come from me, as do your clothes and all of your comforts. Greatness, royalty, and the crown are mine; who would dare say that any man but I was king?" All the elders inclined their heads, since no one dared gainsay anything he said. But

 

By saying this he lost God's farr, and through

The world men's murmurings of sedition grew.

 

As a wise and reverent man once remarked, "If you are a king, be as a slave toward God; the heart of any man who is ungrateful to God will be filled with countless fears." Jamshid's days were darkened, and his world-illuminating splendor dimmed.

 

 

 

We can see several major mistakes and misinterpretations by Asgharzadeh.  No where is there a mention of Kiumars being from 1700 B.C!  (This was made up by either Asgharzadeh or the pan-Turkist Zehtabi).  Then Asgharzadeh mixes up the story  of Kayumars, Siamak  and Tahmuras by skipping over the story of Hushang!   That is why he falsely claims that “The lord Tahmuras came to avenge Siamak’s death!”.  Whereas we can see, it was Kayumar, the father of Siamak and Hushang the son of Siamak who avenge the death of Siamak from the black Daemon.  So it was not Tahmuras the Deevand (Tahmuras the Daemnon binder), but Hushang.  This shows that Asgharzadeh has not read the Shahnameh and either he is simply trying to translate a pan-Turkist article.  Such a simple mistake of mixing up the story of Hushang with Tahmuras is a clear a proof of this.  This sort of plagiarism, distortion, misinterpretation and juxtaposition of the Shahnameh by pan-Turkists like Asgharzadeh is simply academically unwarranted. 

 

Furthermore, it is clear from the Shahnameh that Divs were supernatural creatures with horns.  As per Ahriman, Ahriman simply means satan and devil in Persian.  We note that in the Qur’an, Solomon has control over all Jinns.  That is why many Islamic historians have tried to identify Jamshid with Solomon.  Also given that the story of Jamshid comes after Kiumars,  if take Shahnameh as a history book (Asgharzadeh/Zehtabi seeing that they have no support for their wild theories have to avail to the misinterpretation of the Shahnameh to find any support for their wild theories), then the stories go back to proto-Iranians.   Of course Jamshid who reigned for 1000 years is a mythical being.  Same with Tahmuras who is also mentioned in the Avesta. 

 

Finally, Asgharzadeh misinterpreting the story of Tahmuras the Daemon binder claims:

“And the divs teach their knowledge, languages, ways of life, and culture to "the Aryan Lord" and his people:

They taught the Shah how to write They enlightened his mind and heart with knowledge They taught him to write not in one but in thirty languages Such as the Roman, Persian, Arabic

Sughdi, Chini, Pahlavi and whatever language that was heard of

(FerdowsClOlO/1960, p. 38; see also Warner, p. 127)

Thus, following the Indo-European tradition before him, Ferdowsi identifies the indigenous peoples of Iran as divs and demons. However, even in his capacity to demonize, he is still forced to admit that these so-called demons were far more knowledgeable and resourceful than his Aryan shahs and their armies. The divs know how to read and write. They speak not one or two but thirty languages—another testimonial to the multilingual charac­ter of the region—they know how to cultivate the land and domesticate the animal, whereas the supposedly superior Aryan race of Ferdowsi knows none of these and lives on mountaintops. Ferdowsi's account clearly indicates that the real or perceived Aryan tribes, at the time of their arrival to Mesopotamia, were indeed backward compared to the indigenous peoples living there.“

“

Actually they do not teach their way of life and culture.  As can be seen from the above passages of Shahnameh, it was Kiumars, Hushang and etc. who thought man cultivation of the soil, fighting, wearing of clothes, domesticate animals, food preparation and fire.  So if we go in the Asgharzadeh misinterpretation of Shahnameh world, no it was Aryan race and their kings who thought man how to cultivae the soil, wear cloths, domestiace animals, prepare food, make weapons and fight.  Furthermore, if we are to take Shahnameh literally, then it says the Div thought Arabic, Roman, Chinese, Sogdians (an Iranian language of Central Asia).. none of these languages pertain to the Iranian plateau.  For example Chinese or Roman.  So here we see the fallacy of Asgharzadeh for trying to make myths as reality and reality as myth.  Also interestingly enough, Ferdowsi does not mention the Div teaching Turkish.  In the pan-Turkist world of Zehtabi/Asgharzadeh misintrepreation, the supernatural Div’s are actually Turks who teach Persians and other Aryans culture and language 3700 years ago.  But as can bee seen from the Shahnameh, all their theories are simply baloney.  Also as shown Ferdowsi’s account shows that the Aryan kings thought men how to domestiace animals, prepare food, cultivate the land, wear clothes, wear fur, prepare weapons and etc.    Asgharzadeh, finding no support in history books for any of his wild theories, claims that the above mythical story is a testament to the multi-culture of the region!  Where-as we only have myths here and in the myths there is no multi-culturalism either.  There are Aryan kings, Ahirman (the Zoroastrian devil) and supernatural beings called Div (who are not humans in the Shahnameh and who in the older Zoroastrian tradition are negative supernatural deities and who in the older Indo-Iranian tradition are simply worshipped supernatural deities).  So as shown, Asgharzadeh distorted, manipulated and misinterpreted the Shahnameh in order to support his pan-Turkist theories. 

 

 

Omission of important sentences from sources

After distorting the Shahnameh and Avesta, Asgharzadeh then moves on to other sources and omits and distorts:

“The diverse nature of pre-Islamic Iran is a fact that even some Western scholars are beginning to acknowledge:

In the first place, Iranshahr lacked uniformity. The lands under Persian domination differed from each other in their ethnic composition, geographic features, and patterns of subsistence. In Mesopotamia the mass of population spoke Syriac as late as the 10th century. In Khuzistan the inhabitants retained their own language, Khuzi, though they usually spoke Arabic or Persian as well. On the plateau, where Arabic never achieved a serious foothold, people spoke different languages and dialects. Their conversion to Islam and to the use of standard Persian were prolonged processes; in fact the latter is not yet com­pleted. Thus in pre-modern times the uniform and unifying "Persian-Muslim culture" was largely confined to a small elite. (Christensen, 1993, p. 17)”

 

Unfortunately, Asgharzadeh is quoting again out of context.  Peter Christen above is talking about post-Islamic era.  Firstly, the book Peter Christen considers the term Iranshahr to be more appropriate than the Middle East.  By Iranshahr, he does not just mean modern Iran, but he means the following area (Peter Christensen, The Decline of Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the History of the Middle East, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1500 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993)  see pg 16 of Chapter 2).

 

 

Note the area of Iranshahr is fairly wide and does not constitute the modern Middle East but many areas beyond the Middle East and some areas not part of the Middle East.

 

Christen says:

“For practical as well as .method­ological reasons the inquiry is limited to the lands between the Euphrates in the west and the Amu Darya (Oxus) in the east. The geopolitical unit which we today call "the Middle East" is a rather unwieldy object of study; it is too large and too vaguely defined. In pre-modern times, however, the lands between these two rivers made up a distinct unit, ruled by Persians and marked by Persian civilization; the ancient name of this unit was Iranshahr.”(pg 2)

 

 

Secondly, the book of Peter Christen is about “Irrigation and Environments in Iranshahr from 500 B.C. to 1500 A.D.”  It is a book about irrigation and environment rathern than the actual history of the region.  Christen has emphasized the agriculture farmers in his book rather than the written culture.  But it should be noted that although many Persian dialects were (and even) are currently present in Iran, the standard Dari-Persian has had undeniable and the greatest influence on Iranian culture.  The reason is that it is the cultural elite, poets, writes and educated who have the greatest share and weight on Iran’s culture.  So although the number of educated people relative to total population was small say in 1000 A.D., but the percentage of their influence on culture is very large.  For example Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, although in Dari-Persian of Khorasan is passed down to the farming cultures of other areas in Iran:

 

The Story of Rostam and Esfandiyar in an Iranian Dialect

Hamid Mahamedi

JAOS, Vol. 102, 1982

 

 

Thirdly the quote of Peter Christen, is taken out of context by Asgharzadeh.  The quote is referring to the 10th century.  Because Arabic was not spoken in Khuzestan before the Islamic invasion.  Similarly, Mesopatamia as Christen mentions was Syriac speaking until the 10th century.  So the quote is not talking about pre-Islamic Iran.  Also Christsen just points to two areas Khuzistan and Mesopatamia that had major non-Iranic elements.  The rest of Iranshahr in the 10th century spoke Iranic and other Indo-European languages.  Christen rules out Arabic in the Iranian plateau in the 10th century without the exception of Khuzistan.  Thus the only question remaining is that if he considered Turkic and other Altaic languages to have a foot-hold in Azerbaijan and Iran.  The answer is of course negative contrary to the views of pan-Turkists.

 

Christen is clear on the matter:

 

“Medieval sources further remarked the distinctive ethnic character of the country even before immigration, beginning in the 13th century, transformed it into the major Turkish-speaking region in Iranshahr.”

..

“The Ghuzz Turks arrived in the 11th and 12th centuries. They were assigned grazing lands in northern Azarbaydjan, including the Mughan steppe where they could serve as fighters for the Faith, ghaziyan, against Armenians and Georgians.”

…

“The Ghuzz presumably numbered some tens of thousands and can hardly have disturbed subsistence patterns to any great extent; in fact, the mountains of Azar­baydjan already contained a more or less nomadic population of Kurds.  The Mongol invasion, on the other hand, brought considerable immigration. No less than a half million nomads, with their herds, were brought west and settled in Azarbaydjan, Arran, and Anatolia. Later, successive Turkish rulers on the northern Plateau — the Qara-qoyunlu, the Aq-qoyunlu and especially the Safavids — trans­ferred many of these nomads from Anatolia to Azarbaydjan and other places in Iran”

..

“Apparently Alexander was content with appointing (or simply acknowledging) a Persian, Atropates, as vassal prince”

 

(See Chapter 16 on Azerbaijan in Peter Christensen, The Decline of Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the History of the Middle East, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1500 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993).)

 

 

So Christen is clear that the inhabitants of Azerbaijan were not Turks and they were Iranic elements like Kurds and Azeri’s and other Indo-European elements like Armenians.   So Asgharzadeh has misquoted Christen out of context in order to support his pan-Turkists theories on Shahnameh and Avesta.  Also on the map of Azerbaijan, Christensen clearly distinguishes Aran from Azerbaijan and of course both names are not Altaic.  Azerbaijan is a Persian name and Arran is possibly middle Persian.

 

 

The next author which is distorted by Asgharzadeh is Muqaddasi.  Before we respond, it is good to have an overview of the major Iranian languages and dialects in the region during the early Islamic era. 

 

Professor. Lousie Marlow has given such an overview: “Just as in Sasanian times, local dialects had coexis­ted with Middle Persian and with Dari, numerous (non-Persian) Iranian languages and dialects, several of which have persisted to the present day and have, like Persian, assumed written form, are recorded by the geographers and historians of the early and medi­eval Islamic periods.  Al-Mas'udi (d. 956) mentions Azari alongside Dari and Pahlavi; in the Caspian regions a number of languages persisted, including Daylami and Tabari, the latter of which also emerged as a literary language in about the fourth/tenth centu­ry; Khwarazmian written in a modified Arabic script, is found from the fifth eleventh to the eighth four­teenth centuries.  Several regions, including Kirman, Makran, Ushrusana. Gharjistan, and Ghur were characterized by distinctive dialects, and according to al-Muqaddasi. who wrote in the second half of the fourth/tenth century, the spoken idiom in almost every Khurasanian town differed from the common language.  Dari, Pahlavi also survived, especially in its oral literature. It gave its name to the quatrains and other poems in dialect known as the fahlaviyyat; indeed, as knowledge of both Middle Persian and Parthian receded, the term Pahlavi was occasionally used to describe poetry in other dialects, as long as they were distinct from poetry in Persian.  Kurdish flourished as a spoken language with several dia­lects and a rich oral literature; it was written in the Arabic and in other scripts. Pashto was simil­arly distinguished by many dialects and a written literature.”

(Louise Marlow “Iranian languages: Continuance of Regional Languages and Dialects”in Josef W. Meri, “Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia”, Routledge,  2005)

Thus Persian has numerous dialects at one time.  Even in many regions like Esfahan, Khorasan, Fars, there are still many smaller dialects.  Kurdish today has more than 50 dialects.  Arabic has many many dialects as well.  Dialects develop from a language due to lack of communication.  If two villages do not have education and they do not keep in contact with each other, a short span of several generations is sufficient for the development of dialects between the two.  At the same time, the bulk of vocabulary will probably remain similar.  We should note that linguists do not have exact clear definition between what constitutes a dialect, sub-dialect and language.  For example Moqaddasi mentions they spoke idioms in every Khurasan which differed from the common language.  Medieval travelers have many times called sub-dialects as languages as we shall see.  For pan-Turkists and leftists, even sub-dialect mean separate groups of people.  If that was the case, then the modern Azerbaijani Turkish dialect of Urmia is different than Ardabil and thus they should be considered separate groups.  Pan-Turkists do not believe this, but yet they carelessly handle medieval sources.

 

 

Asgharzadeh writes:

“For instance, the tenth century Arab traveler al-Muqaddasi observed that "over 70 languages were spoken in Azerbaijan," which was considered to be a part of the Iranian Plateau (1906, p. 260).”

 

It should be noted that dialects and sub-dialects were considered languages at that time.  The languages attested in Azerbaijan during the time of al-Muqaddasi are Azari (Iranian language not be confused with Azerbaijani Turkish which arrived much later), Kurdish, Dari Persian, Deylami, Talyshi, Gilaki and Armenian.    Even today for example, Kurdish has more than 50 dialects and numerous subdialects.  Some hardly mutually understandable.   Talyshi has at least 6 subdialects and Gilaki also.   It should also be noted that Azerbaijan was a large area.   Iranic (Daylam, Gilak, Talysh, Kurdish, Azeri..) and Armenian elements were present.  But it is obvious that Iranic elements predominated in the area.  Although Asgharzadeh omits crucial passages from Muqaddasi, we will bring it forth for the reader:

 

Moqaddasi(d. late 4th/10th cent.) also affirms that the language of Azerbaijan was Iranian (al-ajamya), saying that “it was partly Dari and partly “convoluted (monqaleq)”; he means no doubt to distinguish between the administrative lingua franca, i.e., Dari Persian, and the local dialects (Ahásan al-taqasim, p. 259). Further he says that the language of the Azerbaijanis “is not pretty . . . but their Persian is intelligible, and in articulation (fil-haruf) it is similar to the Persian of Khorasan” (p. 378). (E. Yarshater, Encyclopedia Iranica, Azerbaijan)

 

Professor. C.E. Bosworth, certainly qualified to examine the statement quoted by Asgharzadeh mentions:

“We need not take seriously Moqaddasi’s assertion (p. 375) that Azerbaijan had seventy languages, a state of affairs more correctly applicable to the Caucasus region to the north; but the basically Iranian population spoke an aberrant, dialectical form of Persian (called by Masudi al-azariya) as well as standard Persian, and the geographers state that the former was difficult to understand.”(C.E. Boseworth, Encyclopedia Iranica, Azerbaijan)

            

Why has Asgharzadeh ommited these crucial passages from Moqaddasi on the language of Azerbaijan?

Furthermore Moqaddasi clearly states on the region:

“They have big beards and their speech is not attractive.  In Arminya they speak Armenian, in al-Ran, Rannian; their Persian s understandable, and is close to Khurasanian in sound.”

(Al-Muqaddasi, ‘The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions’, a translation of his Ahsan at-taqasim fi Ma'rifat al-Aqalim by B.A. Collins, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Garnet Publishing Limited,1994, pg 329-331)

 

Also why doesn’t he mention that Moqaddasi clearly distinguishes Aran, Armenian and Azerbaijan.  And most importantly, Moqaddasi does not refer to any Altaic language in the region of Azerbaijan.  So what happened to Zehtabi/Poorpirar theories?

 

Moqaddasi also names the cities of Azerbaijan:

“Rasba, Tabriz, Jabirwan, Ardabil, Khunaj, al-Miyanij, al-Saraat, Barwa, Warthan, Muqan, Mimadh, Barzand”.  Many of these names have clear Iranian etymologies, but none of the names have Altaic etymologies. 

 

For example on Barzand, Moqaddasi says: “small; the market of Armenians” (Al-Muqaddasi, ‘The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions’, a translation of his Ahsan at-taqasim fi Ma'rifat al-Aqalim by B.A. Collins, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Garnet Publishing Limited,1994, pg 329-331)

 

On Salmas (which Moqaddasi considers part of Armenia), he says: “The Kurds have build a wall around it” (Al-Muqaddasi, ‘The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions’, a translation of his Ahsan at-taqasim fi Ma'rifat al-Aqalim by B.A. Collins, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Garnet Publishing Limited,1994, pg 329-331).  Thus given the fact that some Kurdish dialects have many sub-dialects, we can easily understand the statement of Moqaddasi in this light as well.

 

 

The next author that is misquoted and important quotes of his ommited is Ibn Hawqal.  Asgharzadeh writes:

“Ibn Howqal, another tenth-century Arab historian determined the number of languages spo­ken in Azerbaijan and Caucasia to be "360 spoken languages" (1966, p. 82).  It is not surprising then to see a certain Caucasian mountain referred in Arabic sources as "Jabal al-Alsana" or "the Mountain of Languages" (see also Ibn Howqal, 1966). This goes to show that many languages were spoken in ancient Azerbaijan, and by extension in Persia or Iran.

”

 

Again Ibn Hawqal is referring to a mountain in Caucasia.  Nothing to do with Iran or Azerbaijan.  Ibn Hawqal in his map clearly considers Azerbaijan below the Aras river.  We shall discuss this the map of Ibn Hawqal later. 

 

But as per the language of Azerbaijan, Ibn Hawqal clearly states:

“The language of the majority of people of Azerbaijan and Armenia is Persian and it binds them together and Arabic is also commonly known.  And the majority of merchants that know Persian also know Arabic well.  In groups around Armaniya speak languages similar to Armenian and also the people Dabil and Nackhchiwan.  And the language of the people of Barda’is Arranian and the famous caucaus mountains is from thereand around that mountain there are unbelievers who speak different languages and most of them have a common language”. ( Kitab al-buldan [A Book of Cities]. Tehran: Bonyad-e-Farhang-e Iran. Ibn Howqal, S. (1966). Surat al-arz. J. Shoar (Ed.))

 

Ibn Hawqal also mentions that each district around the mountain of Sabalan: speak their own idiom that is not (standard) Persian and Azari (the major languages).( Kitab al-buldan [A Book of Cities]. Tehran: Bonyad-e-Farhang-e Iran. Ibn Howqal, S. (1966). Surat al-arz. J. Shoar (Ed.))

 

Thus the standard languages of Azerbaijan at that time were the Iranian Azari language (not to be confused with Azerbaijani Turkish) and Persian.  It should be noted that the region of Armenia described by Ibn Hawqal is not the modern small country of Armenia which is a minor part of the Great Armenia of ancient times.  The Armenia described by Ibn Hawqal has many muslims and it extends to parts of Iran, Turkey and Caucus.  Nevertheless, why has Asgharzadeh forgotten this major quotes that mention Persian and Azari-Iranian?    And why is he trying to extend the mountains beyond the caucus as an extension of Azerbaijan and Persia when Ibn Hawqal does not!  Ibn Hawqal clearly defines Azerbaijan below the Aras river and mentions that the majority language is Persian and it is the common language of the area.  Why has Asgharzadeh ommited this quote from Ibn Hawqal?  Simply because he knows that these passages show that Iranian /Persian languages were spoken in Azerbaijan before Turkification.  Ibn Haqwal does not say a word about Turks in Azerbaijan.

 

The next writer whose quote is distorted by Asgharzadeh is Al-Masoudi.  This is how Asgharzadeh quotes Al-Masudi, intentionally deleting crucial passages from the sentence:

 

For instance, the tenth-century Arab historian, Al-Mas'udi, describes the Persians as follows:

A people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azerbaijan up to Armenia and Aran, and Bayleqan up to Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorhan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in the land of Khorasan, and Sistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz. ... All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language. (Al-Mas'udi, 1967, pp. 191-192)

 

Here is the actual passage from al-Masudi in Arabic.


مسعودي در التنبيه و الاشراف مي‌نويسد:

فالفرس أمة حد بلادها الجبال من الماهات وغيرها وآذربيجان إلى ما يلي بلاد أرمينية وأران والبيلقان إلى دربند وهو الباب والأبواب والري وطبرستن والمسقط والشابران وجرجان وابرشهر، وهي نيسابور، وهراة ومرو وغير ذلك من بلاد خراسان وسجستان وكرمان وفارس والأهواز، وما اتصل بذلك من أرض الأعاجم في هذا الوقت وكل هذه البلاد كانت مملكة واحدة ملكها ملك واحد ولسانها واحد، إلا أنهم كانوا يتباينون في شيء يسير من اللغات وذلك أن اللغة إنما تكون واحدة بأن تكون حروفها التي تكتب واحدة وتأليف حروفها تأليف واحد، وإن اختلفت بعد ذلك في سائر الأشياء الأخر كالفهلوية والدرية والآذرية وغيرها من لغات الفرس

 

In Persian:

پارسيان قومي بودند كه قلم‌روشان ديار جبال بود از ماهات و غيره و آذربايجان تا مجاور ارمنيه و اران و بيلقان تا دربند كه باب و ابواب است و ري و طبرستان و مسقط و شابران و گرگان و ابرشهر كه نيشابور است و هرات و مرو و ديگر ولايت‌هاي خراسان و سيستان و كرمان و فارس و اهواز با ديگر سرزمين عجمان كه در وقت حاضر به اين ولايت‌ها پيوسته است، همه‌ي اين ولايت‌ها يك مملكت بود، پادشاه‌اش يكي بود و زبان‌اش يكي بود، فقط در بعضي كلمات تفاوت داشتند، زيرا وقتي حروفي كه زبان را بدان مي‌نويسند يكي باشد، زبان يكي است وگر چه در چيزهاي ديگر تفاوت داشته باشد، چون پهلوي و دري و آذري و ديگر زبان‌هاي پارسي

 

In English:

 

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz and other Persian lands that has now been connected to these lands. All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language although the language differed slightly.  The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition.  There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (based on Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8 with the above Arabic and Persian translations).

 

We note that Asgharzadeh has ommited this crucial portion:” The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition.  There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages.”

 

Asgharzadeh then bitterly complains: that Masudi is referring to all these lands as Persian because if a Persian king was ruling over a territory in Azerbaijan or Georgia or Armenia, that territory was often referred to as Persia and its inhabitants as Persian, regardless of their original ethnic and racial background.  By and large, al-Mas’udi’s above testimony clearly indicates the extent to which a large segment of the Islamic historiography of ancient Iran is unreal and superficial.  For the most part, these historians relied on Greek and other sources whose authenticity was in question.(pg 61)

 

 

 

Asgharzadeh is wrong.  He first ommited crucial passages from Ibn Hawqal, Al-Muqqadassi and Al-Masudi, then makes a invalid complaint.  Firstly, Al-Masudi in the above does not mention Georgia.  Asgharzadeh has made that up.  Al-Masudi mentions Jorjan which is the arabicized form of Gorgan in the province of Mazandaran where the inhabitants speak a dialect that is Iranic and very similar to Dari Persian.  Indeed, Fazlollah Astarabadi, the founder of the Hurrifya sect has work in the Astarabadi (Gorgani) Persian dialect.   The second issue is Armenia.  Armenia was ruled by many Parthian/Persian principalities and had a substantial Iranian population.  For example the Parthians settled in Armenia as did the Orontids and Achaemenids and Medes and etc.  Also the Armenia described by medieval Islamic historians sometimes included all of the caucus as well a good portion of NW modern Iran and eastern Turkey.  The medieval historians mention Muslim rulers in the area.  Indeed Iranic dynasties like Daylamites and Kurdish Rawwadids and Shadadids ruled portions of Armenia and so there was a large Iranic/Persian settlement.  Finally, as per Azerbaijan, had Asgharzadeh not omitted crucial passages from Ibn Hawqal, al-Muqaddasi and al-Masudi the matter would have been clear and there would be no room to be bitter. 

 

As per al-Masudi, we can see he was very attentive to details and knew the difference between Geography and Ethnicity.  Here is a case in point clearly demonstrating this issue:

 

Abl-Hasan Ali ibn Masudi , an Arab historian who writes: ‘’The birth of Afrasiyab was in the land of Turks and the error that historians and non-historians have made about him being a Turk is due to this reason”  (Abi al-Ḥasan Ali ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Ali al-Masudi, Muruj al-dhahab wa-maadin al-jawhar , Beirut, Lebanon : Dar al-Marifah, 2005)

 

This clearly demonstrates that unlike Asgharzadeh’s claim, al-Masudi investigated and knew the differences between geography and ethnicity.  Today, all modern scholars agree that the ancient Avesta Turanians were also Iranic.  Al-Masudi knew this 10 centuries ago.  

 

Again it is crucial to note that not even once do we hear about Turks in Azerbaijan in the travels of al-Muqaddasi, al-Masudi and Ibn Hawqal.   It is crucial to note that these three geographers, historians and travelers actually traveled to the region.  Unlike what Asgharzadeh falsely claims, they did not rely on Greek soruces and provide an eyewitness account.  Indeed, Dari Persian was not prevalent during the era of Greek historians where-as it is mentioned by all three. 

 

So as can be seen, Asgharzadeh distorts scholarship on Zoroastrianism, Achaemenids, Medes, Shahnameh, classical Arabic sources in order to paint a false picture of Iran’s past that suits the interest of pan-Turkists.

 

Arya/Pars

 

As seen, Alireza Asgharzadeh miserably failed in distorting and revising Iranian history in order to fit his pan-Turkist framework.   Having no choice but to quote pseudo-scholars who believe the Shahnameh was created after the Safavid era (poorpirar) or Turks have a 6000 year history in Iran, Alireza Asgharzadeh continues with his anti-Iranism.  Since there is no trace of any Altaic groups in Iran in the Achaemenid era, Alireza Asgharzadeh like any other racist pan-Turkist has no choice but to vent his anger on ethnonyms of Iranian culture.

 

Continuing with his conspiracy theories, he writes:

“

The contemporary indigenous historiography pioneered by such scholars as Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi (1999) and Naser Poorpirar (2000, 20001a, 2001b) acknowledges that Orientalist methods of knowing and research are deeply imbedded in Iranian historiography, that such imbeddedness calls into question the authenticity and autonomy of Iranian historiography, and that articulations and explorations of Iranian history through indigenous-oriented local ways and methods of research are essential for the emergence of a more realistic and sensible Iranian historiography. It is through this realistic local historiography that terms such as Arya, Aryan, Iran, Fars, and Persia are now being reinterpreted and re-presented.

What Arya meant was a form of reference and address that conveyed by some accounts gentleness and modesty and by others aggressiveness and  wickedness (Poorpirar, 2000). As far as the Persian texts are concerned, we come across the word Arya for the first time in Achaemenid inscriptions and, more specifically, in the inscriptions written in the era of Darius and Xerxes. In the Behistoon Inscription of Darius, "Arya" appears three times as "Arik," two times as "Arika," and one time as "Ariya." In the Darius inscription of Naqsh-e Rostam it appears once as "Aryi"; in Darius inscription of Shush it appears once again as "Aryi"; it appears one more time in Xerxes Inscription of Takht-e Jamshid as "Aryi." So it is interesting to note that "Arya" appears only in inscriptions accounting for 50 years of Darius and Xerxes rule within the Achaemenid era (Poorpirar, 2000). The question is: why does this term appear only in the beginning of the Achaemenid era and why is not repeated in subsequent years of the Achaemenid dynasty?

The Iranian historian Naser Poorpirar argues that the Western Orientalists have intentionally misinterpreted the term Arya only to serve their own utopic/colonial agendas. He convincingly demonstrates that in the above-mentioned inscriptions the word Ariya meant nothing other than such derogatory notions as revolt (shouresh), and thug, rouge, gangster (sharir) and their derivatives (Poorpirar, 2000, pp. 217-219). Poorpirar maintains that nowhere in the inscriptions does the word Ariya have a racial or a linguistic connotation.

 

…

According to historian Poorpirar, the indige­nous peoples of Iran in the pre-Achaemenid era at some historical juncture were forced to face a ruthless and ferocious tribe, bent on annihilating their entire existence. They identified this ruthless adversary as "Parseh" or Persian:

It is here that for the first time the Iranian people named this unnamed, unknown and blood-spelling tribe "Parseh," a title which in both ancient and contemporary Iran, as well as in Median and Elamite culture has been interpreted as "beggar, astray, and intruder." From this title the derivative "wandering around" (Parseh zadan) has been conceived; and even by comparison, the Iranians have named the angry barking of dog as "pars." (Poorpirar, 2000, p. 218)”

 

Unfortuantely for Asgharzadeh, 80% of Iranic speaking population of Iran and virtually the majority of Azerbaijanis not affected by pan-Turkist racism do not take the writings of Poorpirar and Zehtabi seriously and neither does anyone in Academia.  The reason is that it is based on fanciful theories with no academic backing.  Neither is Zehtabi indigineous.  He was educated in Baku and then Iraq and has baseless theories like Elamite is alive today was already exposed in the introduction of this article

 

The poorly thought comments of Asgharzadeh are such examples.  First it is good to start with the lack of linguistic knowledge of Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar.  The term “Oghuz” and “Doghuz/Donghuz/Toghuz” sound similar but they have different meaning.  The second term means swine in Turkish, but just because of a sound similarity, it does not mean that these two words are of the same root or have the same meaning!  Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge of basic knowledge about this simple fact has made Asgharzadeh think that Academia and Iranians in general will take the likes of Poorpirar (who does not even have a college degree) or Zehtabi seriously. 

 

Intestingly, Asgharzadeh who has been using the term “Aryan races” throughout his book now believes in the theory of Porpirar that Arya/Aryan has no ethnic or linguistic meaning. 

 

Now let us examine the two unrelated words from Kent’s Manual of Old Persian:

 

Ariya-adj. 'Aryan' (perhaps Āriya-, §126): Av. airya-, Skt. arya- 'noble', cf. NPers. ērān 'Iran, Persia', Irish Eire  'Ireland', to pIE root *er-, OP ar- (§35.1, §144.1). See also Ariyaciça -, Ariyâramna-.  Ariya nsm. DNa 14; DSe 13; XPh 13. ariyâ isn. as sb. 'in Aryan (language)' DB4.89. (pg 170)

 

 

arika- adj. 'evil, faithless': deriv. (§146.11) of *asra, GAv. angra-, LAv. aŋra- 'hostile, enemy', to pAr. root *ans-> seen in Av. ąsta- 'hate, enmity'; cf. also Av. (nom.) aŋgrō mainyuš 'evil spirit, Ahriman' (Bthl. AiW 189); not to Skt. ari`- 'en­emy' (MB Gr. §273), nor to Skt. alīka`- (Wacker-nagel, KZ 59.28-9). arika nsm. DB 1.22, 33; 4.63.   arīkā npm. DB 5.15°, 31° (pg 170)

 

It should be noted that the two terms are defined differently with different meaning.  The contradiction of Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar is shown by their admission:” What Arya meant was a form of reference and address that conveyed by some accounts gentleness and modesty and by others aggressiveness and  wickedness”.

 

In reality it is interesting that according to these two anti-Iranian uneducated non-linguists (Poorpirar and Asgharzadeh), Arya means both modesty and gentles and also aggressiveness and wickedness!  When a person starts lying they can not stop until they constantly contradict themselves like Asgharzadeh has done above.  As can be seen from Kent’s dictionary, these two words are not the same and Asgharzadeh is totally wrong when he claims that “arika” is the same as “ariya”.  It is like saying Khar (donkey) is the same as Khār (thorn) in Persian or Oghuz is the same as Donghuz and so on.  The proto roots of these words are different as well as shown by Kent.  Furthermore, in the Elamite inscriptions, Ahuramazda is called the God of Aryans.  We can see this is the case in the Avesta as well, as Ahuramzda is the God of Iranians.  Also the name of Darius I’s father is Ariyâramna (comforter of Aryans).  The fact of the matter is that pan-Turkists having no basis in Iran’s ancient have no choice but to resort to childish act in order to belittle Iran’s past as much as possible.  As per the question of Asgharzadeh that why does not Arya appear after Darius and Xerxes in Old Persian inscription.  Why should it?  There are around 12 Old Persian inscriptions that have been discovered after the time of Xerxes and they are relatively short.  There are more than 70+ Old Persian inscriptions discovered from the time of Darius and Xerxes.  Only three of them mention Aryan.  Also none of the 12 Old Persian inscriptions after Xerxes mention Persian.  Now going by Asgharzade’s weird theories, should we consider Darius III who is descendant of Darius I as non-Persian?  We can see that pan-Turkists ask questions in order to cast doubt on Iran’s past.  Nevertheless, the names such as

1)

Ariyâramna

2)

ARYANDES, 

 

 

3)

ARIOBARZANES (There was two persons with that name.  One of them was a famous Satrap under Darius III

http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/ariobarzanes/ariobarzanes2.html

 

See also:

“Ariobarzanes” in Encyclopedia Iranica by M. A. Dandamayev

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f4/v2f4a058.html

 

4)

ARIARATUS(One of the three sons of ArtaXerxes II: see

(“Ariaratus” in Encyclopedia Iranica by C.J. Brunner http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f4/v2f4a056.html )

occur in Old Persian and Elamite form and continuously till the end of the Achaemenid empire. 

In the Parthian era, such attested names occur in the Nisa documents;

Aryabām, Aryabānuk, Aryabarzan (just discussed in the Achaemenid era), Aryabōžan, Aryaxšhahrak, AryanĪstak, Aryafriyānak, Aryasāxt, Aryazan

See: I.M Diakonoff and V A. Livshits, Parthian Economic Documents from Nisa, ed. D. N. MacKenzie. (5 volumes)

 

 

After showing the folk etymology at play by the two non-linguists (Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar) , let us examine the claim by Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar that : “nowhere in the inscriptions does the word Ariya have a racial or a linguistic connotation.”

 

 

We have discussed this clear issue in a previous article and the evidence is 100% clear and shows why revisionists like Poorpirar/Asgharzadeh are completely wrong.

 

According to the online etymology dictionary:

Aryan Look up Aryan at Dictionary.com

1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam). Aryan also was used (1861) by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) to refer to "worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans," which he took to be the original sense. In comparative philology, Aryan was applied (by Pritchard, Whitney, etc.) to "the original Aryan language" (1847; Arian was used in this sense from 1839, but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history), the presumed ancestor of a group of related, inflected languages mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. In this sense it gradually was replaced by Indo-European (q.v.) or Indo-Germanic, except when used to distinguish I.E. languages of India from non-I.E. ones. It came to be applied, however, to the speakers of this group of languages (1851), on the presumption that a race corresponded to the language, especially in racist writings of French diplomat and man of letters J.A. de Gobineau (1816–82), e.g. "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines," 1853–55, and thence it was taken up in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter.

 

 

 

An essay written a while back also describes the term Aryan in more detail

(As the dictionary correctly asserts Aryans means the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans. 

Let us review some of the old sources that explicitly establish why Iran (the land of Arya) and Iranians are Aryans (Iranians) and why the Academia still uses this terms for the Indo-Iranians.  HERODOTUS in his Histories remarks that: “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; “ (7.62).  So here we have a foreign source that refers to part of the Iranians as Arya. 

 

Native sources also describe Iranians by this ethnonym.  Old Persian which is a testament to the antiquity of the Persian language and which is related to most of the languages/dialects spoken in Iran including modern Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Baluchi makes it clear that Iranians referred to themselves as Arya.  The term Ariya appears in the royal inscriptions in three different context: As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun; as the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph) and as the definition of the God of Arya people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription.  For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as “An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock”.  Note that first they describe their clan (Achaemenid) and then tribe/group (Persian) and then their ethnicity Arya.  So here we have good references that both the Medes and Persians referred to themselves as Aryans.  The Medes and Persians were people of western Iranian stock.  Western Iranian languages and dialects including Kurdish, Persian, Baluchi have their roots in the Old Persian and Median languages and are prevalent languages of Iran today.  The OP inscriptions date back approximately to 400-500 B.C.

 

 

Concurrently, or even prior to Old Persian, the word Airya is abundant used in the Avesta and related Zoroastrian literature whose origin lies with the eastern Iranian people.  The Avestan airya always has an ethnic value.  It appears in Yasht literature and in the Wideewdaad.  The land of Aryans is described as Airyana Vaejah in Avesta and in the Pahlavi inscription as Eran-wez.  The Avesta archer Arash (Arash-e-Kamangir) is called the hero of Airya people.  Zoroaster himself is described from the Airya people.  The examples of the ethnic name of Airya in Avesta are too many to enumerate here and the interested reader is referred to the following site: www.avesta.org

 

Let us now briefly touch upon some more pre-Islamic evidence.  The ostraca (an inscribed potsherd) from Parthian Nisa time period (approx. 2100 years ago) provides us with numerous Parthian names related.  Parthian, like Persian, is a Western Iranian language.  Some of the names of the people at that time that begin with prefix Arya are given by:


Aryabām – Aryabānuk –Aryabarzan-Aryabōžan-Aryaxšahrak-Aryanīstak-Aryafriyānak
-Aryasāxt-Aryazan

 

The etymology of such names is fairly known.  The documents from Nisa as well as other Parthian documents prove that the Parthians employed the Zoroastrian calendar.  The names of the months back then is exactly what we use today with a slight modification in pronounciation:

Farwartīn- Artewahišt-Harwatāt-Tir- Hamurtāt-Xšahrewar-Mihr-Āpāxwinī- Ātar –Daθuš- Wahman- Spandāmard

 

 

Strabo, the Greek Geographer and traveler of the Parthian times also mentions the unity of the various Iranian tribes and dialects:

“and the name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations”.  Moses of Khorenat’si the Armenian historian of 5th century A.D. also denotes the Parthians, Medes and Persians collectively as Aryans.  So ancient neighboring people have consistently referred to Iranians as Aryans.  Both Armenian and Greeks are Indo-Europeans but only Indo-Iranians have been known as Aryans throughout history.

 

From the Parthian epoch we transition into the Sassanid era.  Ardeshir the first, the founder of the Sassanid dynasty, on the coins minted during his era describes himself as Shahan shah Aryan (Iran).  Where Aryan exactly means the “land of the Arya” which is synonymous with land of Iranians.  His son Shapur, whose triumphs over his enemies are the stuff of legends minted coins with the inscription: “Shahan shah aryan ud anaryan” (The king of Kings of  Iran and Non-Iran).  The reason for anaryan is that he expanded the empire beyond the Aryan lands.  The trilingual inscription erected by his command gives us a more clear description.  The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek.  In Greek the inscription says: “ego … tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi”  which translates to “I am the king of the Aryans”.  In the Middle Persian Shapour says: “I am the Lord of the EranShahr” and in Parthian he says: “I am the Lord of AryanShahr”.  Both AryanShahr/EranShahr here denote the country of Iran.  The name IranShahr has been widely referenced after the Arab conquest by many authors including Tabari the great historian and Abu Rayhan Biruni the great scholar.  So the word Eran actually is derived from Arayanam of the Avesta and it means the place Ary/Er (Parthian and Middle Persian respectively).  As the suffix “an” denotes a place holding for example Gil+an means the land of the Gil (Gilak) who are an Aryan ethnic group of modern Iran.  It was mentioned that Darius the Great referred to his language as Aryan.  The Bactrian inscription of Kanishka the founder of the Kushan empire at Rabatak, which was discovered in 1993 in an unexcavated site in the Afghanistan province of Baghlan clearly refers to this Eastern Iranian language as Arya.  Interestingly enough, Bactrian(Bakhtari) was written using Greek alphabets.

 

 

In the post-Islamic era one can see a clear usage of the term Aryan(Iran) in the work of the 10th century historian Hamzeh Esfahani.  In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” he writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”.

 

 

What has been touched upon so far is just some of the evidence that clearly establishes that Iran and Aryan are the same and furthermore that Iranians have always referred to themselves as Arya in history.  The term Arya has never been applied to other branches of Indo-European people.  This term exclusively denotes the Iranians and Indians.  The eminent linguist Emile Benviste asserts that the Old Iranian Arya is documented solely as an ethnic name.  Aryan denotes a cultural-linguistic community.  Racial anthropology on the other hand points to the fact that Iranians as well as many other Aryan speakers like Kurds and Afghans are part of Caucasoid Mediterranean subtype commonly referred to as Irano-Afghan. 

 

It is very well known fact that Aryan languages (Indo-Iranian) predominate the Iranian plateau but, what is not well known is that, Persian is just one of the Aryan languages.  For example languages and dialects like Baluchi, Kurdish, Talyshi, Gilaki, Laki, Gurani and Luri are also Aryan languages linguistically grouped under Iranian languages and are closely tied to Persian.  Furthermore Persian speakers actually are a slim majority in Iran, but speakers of other languages related to Persian and which are also Aryan languages make another 20-25% of the population (Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, CIA fact book, world Almanac and official government statistic of 1991).  But the term Persian in the western literature is equivalent to Iranian and has a more geographical denotation. 

 

So both the Aryan origin of Iranians as well as the Persian Empire are historical facts that are part of our heritage.  The area of the major non-Aryan language in Iran, which is Azarbaijan, was a center of the Medes who spoke Aryan languages.  The people there today are not different culturally from the rest of Iranians.  The language replacement in that area is a recent phenomenon due to the invasion by Altaic Turco-Mongol speaking tribes.  Such language replacements are common as is the case of English in Ireland and Spanish in Mexico and Turkish in Turkey.  Most of the writers and poets from that area have historically written their work in Persian.  Despite the prevalence of the non-Aryan language—the numerous fire-temples, common culture, common history and common religion and Zoroastrian evidence including the name Azarbaijan (meaning land of Fire in Persian) itself has tied the destiny of this important region of Iran with the rest of Iran.  For further reference see:

 

How old is this common Iranian identity, which has continuously evolved in its present state? In my opinion an identity starts with its oldest common substantial heritage that is shared by its people and continuously preserved.  Archeology has shown that the recently excavated Jiroft civilization of Iran could be at least five thousand years old, and all Iranians and indeed all mankind are proud to share this common heritage.  But the discovery of this civilization and similar civilizations are endeavors of recent times.   The Avesta on the other hand has been preserved continuously amongst Iranians since Zoroaster.  The dating of Avesta has been problematic and scholars give a date of around 3700-3000 years for the Old Avesta and about 500-1000 years later for the Young Avesta.  So it is clear that Iranians have at least 3000 years of continuity in language and literature and culture.  The name Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism permeates in the Shahnameh and other folkloric stories of Iranian people.  The Gathas of Zoroaster is indeed a remarkable part of our Iranian heritage and even as a non-Zoroastrian; all Iranians can appreciate the timelessness of its divine message.  Indeed all humans appreciate it as part of their common heritage.  Iranians have also contributed a great deal to the common Islamic heritage and this part our heritage is equally important.  There has always been a cultural dualism between the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic past, but this was no problem for Ferdowsi who was both a Muslim and Iranian. Based on the solid foundation of one of mankind’s ancient heritage, Iranians of the new millennium should integrate new values and adapt to new ideals while passing down their ancient heritage to the next generation.

 

 

 

 

MacKenzie D.N. Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum Part. 2., inscription of the Seleucid and Parthian periods of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. 2. Parthian, London, P. Lund, Humphries 1976-2001

 

MacKenzie D.N. “Some names from Nisa”.  Peredneaziatskij Sbornik, IV, Moskva (Fs.

 

N. Sims-Williams.  “Further notes on the Bactrian inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese” Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies(Cambridge, September 1995), Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies, N. Sim-Williams, ed. Wiesbaden, pp.  79-92.

 

R.G. Kent. Old Persian. Grammer, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed., New Haven, Conn.

 

R.W. Thomson. History of Armenians by Moses Khorenat’si.  Harvard University Press, 1978.)

 

 

Other resources can be found here:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Aryan/aryanmain.htm

 

 

And here:

 

Arya: Encyclopedia Iranica

H.W. Bailey

Aryan: Encyclopedia Iranica

R. SCHMITT

 

 

For example in Armenian/Greek sources like Moses of Khoren, Moses of Kalankatuyk, Elisheh, Herodotus..and multidute of other Armenian historians of the medieval era have consistently referred to Iranians (Medes/Persians/Parthians) as Aryan.

 

The recently found Bactrican document of Kanishka which calls the Iranian Bactrian language as Aryan is another proof that the Aryans (Iranians) have always mainted an ethno-linguistic sense of unity despite divergences in their Iranian dialects. 

 

FURTER NOTES ON THE BACTRIAN INSCRIPTION OF RABATAK, APPENDIX

ON THE NAME OF KUJULA KADPHISES AND VIMA TAKTU IN CHINESE

Nicholas Sim-Williams

Aryan Language

Gherado Gnoli

 

As per the etymology of Parsa, Parsua, Parthia, Pashto which all derive from the same word, the reader is referred to the extensive article of Professor. Paul Widmer (unlike Poorpirar who does not have a college education and lacks knowledge of Old Persian, Pashto, Parthian and other Iranian langages).

 

Etymologisches und Historisches zum Namen der Perser

Paul WIDMER (Philipps-Universität Marburg)

 

The current understand of scholars is that the word Persian/Parthian/Pashto ultimately is related to Avesta/Sanskrit Parsu which means: “"side", "rib", and as ethnonym, "those with strong ribs".

(I. Diakonoff, ‘Media’, in The Cambridge. History of Iran, ii. 36-148. pg 62)

 

Interestingly Asgharzadeh claims that there is Median writing/inscription and claims Persian in the Median culture means:  “, as well as in Median and Elamite culture has been interpreted as "beggar, astray, and intruder.”.   Lacking knowledge of the fact there is no remnant of Median inscription, Asgharzadeh simply falsifies as much as possible while contradicting world known history. 

Also Poorpirar lacking any knowledge of etymology claims negative words such as Porseh is related to Pars.  One can in turn say the word پارسا which has a very positive connotation to be the same root as Parsua.  The fact of the matter is that folk etymology has no basis in any scientific and historical writing.  Or else for example another folk etymologist can claim the word Oghuz and Donghuz are related.  The Farhang Rashidi (Persian dictionary from 1658) writes that : “Parsa comes from Pars which means Paas to protect”.  Another Persian dictionary from the same era called the Burhan Qati’ also puts Parsa and Persian as equivalent.  Parsa means someone who generous and pure and has a fear of God.  Overall, anyword must be understood in its own time and place.  With regards to the word Parsua, Pasrva, Parthian , Parsu (Avesta, Sanskrit) and Pashton, the German article above has done an extensive study.  Interestingly enough, in Turkic languages Pars means leopard.

 

Going back to the word Arya/Aryan and the abuse of some scholars, we will quote Professor. Michael Witzel of Harvard University:

“The ancient Eastern Iranians, too, called themselves airiia: their assumed mythical 'homeland',1 airiianąm vaẽjah, is described in the Avesta (Vīdẽvdåd 1); and the name of the country, Irån, is derived from this word as well. Speakers of Aryan (i.e. of the IIr. languages) occupied, e.g. in the first millennium BCE, the vast area between Rumania and Mongolia, between the Urals and the Vindhya, and between N. Iraq/Syria and the Eastern fringes of N. India. They comprised the following, culturally

quite diverse groups.

 

(a) North Iranians: Scythians in the vast steppes of the Ukraine and eastwards

of it (surviving as the modern Ossete in the Caucasus), the Saka of Xinjiang (Khotanese

and Tumshuq, mod. Sariqoli) and western Central Asia, the Saka tigraxauda (the

"pointed cap" Saka) and the Saka haumavarga (''the Soma pressing Saka'');

 

(b) West Iranians: the ancient Medes (Måda of Rai and Azerbaijan), the mod.

Kurds, Baluchis, and Persians (ancient Pårsa of Fårs) as well as the Tajik;

(c) E. Iranians in Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan: speakers of

Avestan, Bactrian, mod. Pashto, the mod. Pamir languages, Sogdian (mod. Yaghnobi),

and Choresmian;

(d) The recently islamized Kafiri/Nuristani group in N.E. Afghanistan with the

still non-Islamic Kalash in the Chitral valley of Pakistan; to this day they have

preserved many old traits, such as the c. 2000 BCE pronunciation of '10' (duc) and

the old IIr. deity Yama Råjå (Imrā);

(e) The speakers of Indo-Aryan: from Afghanistan eastwards into the Panjab,

and then into the north Indian plains. By the time of the Buddha, the IA languages

had spread all over the northern half of the subcontinent and had displaced almost

completely the previously spoken languages of the area.

Linguists have used the term Ārya from early on in the 19th cent. to designate the speakers of

most Northern Indian as well as of all Iranian languages and to indicate the reconstructed

language underlying both Old Iranian and Vedic Sanskrit. Nowadays this well-reconstructed

language is usually called Indo-Iranian (IIr.), while its Indic branch is called (Old) Indo-

Aryan (IA). An independent third branch is represented by the Kafiri or Nuristani of N.E.

Afghanistan. All these languages belong to the IIr. branch of the Eastern (or Satem) group of

the Indo-Euroepan (IE) languages which differs from the phonetically more conservative

western IE by a number of innovations. The IE languages (which, confusingly, sometimes were

also called ''Aryan'') included, in ancient times, the vast group of tongues from Old Icelandic

to Tocharian (in Xinjiang, China), from Old Prussian (Baltic) to Old Greek and Hittite, and

from Old Irish and Latin to Vedic Sanskrit.

However, the use of the word Ārya or Aryan to designate the speakers of all Indo-

European (IE) languages or as the designation of a particular "race" is an aberration of many

writers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries and should be avoided. At least from Neolithic times

onwards, language had little to do with "race"; language also cuts across ethnic groups and cultures,

 and had little to do with ancient states or with nationhood, as the use of Aramaic in the Persian empire,

Latin in Medieval Europe and Persian in much of the Near East and in medieval India may indicate.”

 

“(Reference: Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115) also found here:

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Aryan/aryanmain.htm)

 

According to Professor James Mallory in his famous book(In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames & Hudson, 1989.):

“The myth of Aryan supremacy, somewhat more evident in some pre-war anthropological journals than among the linguistic ones, was, in varying degrees, a widespread phenomenon until the consequences of its political expression made it anathema in the academic world. One hardly need emphasize that the implementation of Aryan supremacy by the Nazis was wholly inconsistent with Aryan as a linguistic term; Yiddish is as much an Indo-European language as any other German dialect, while Romany-speaking Gypsies had a far better claim to the title of Aryans than any North European. Thus, the myth of Aryan supremacy was neither a direct nor necessary conse­quence of the philological discoveries of the nineteenth century, but rather the misappropriation of a linguistic concept and its subsequent grafting onto an already existing framework of prejudices, speculations and political aspirations. The Indo-Europeans leave more than the legacy of Aryan supremacy.

 

If the development of comparative philology played an unfortunate role in the creation of twentieth century racism, it should also be credited with providing the tools by which scholars were able to elucidate the cultural relationships and origins of the numerous non-Indo-European peoples of the world. The same techniques employed to compare the various lexical and grammatical items of the Indo-European languages were, and still are, equally applicable to the Algonquin, Altaic, Athapascan, Bantu, or indeed any other group of languages. Linguists, originally trained in the field of Indo-European, set out to establish the relationships between the other languages of the world, to reconstruct their proto-languages and investigate their origins.

“

 

 

Thus as shown above, Aryan/Persians are historical realities and the name Iran is an Iranian word and cognate and sound methathesis of the word Aryan.  All these facts are based on extensive monuments, documents and historical sources.  It is not the fault of Iranians that the ethnic terms Arya/Iran/Iranian/Aryan..were mishandled by some European scholars.  Indeed before any European scholar came along, Hamza Esfahani (893-961 A.D) wrote:

“Aryan which is Persia is located in between these countries and these six countries are around it: The SE is China, the North is the land of Turks, the middle bottom is India, the NW of it is Rome and the SW of it is Sudan and opposite to Sudan is the land of the Berbers”

 

حمزه اصفهانی می نویسد (تاریخ پیامبران و شاهان، ترجمه جعفر شعار، انتشارات امیرکبیر، 1367، ص 2): «آریان که همان فرس است در میان این کشورها قرار دارد و این کشورهای شش گانه محیط بدان اند، زیرا جنوب شرقی زمین در دست چین، و شمال در دست ترک، میانه جنوب در دست هند، رو به روی آن یعنی میانه شمالی در دست روم و جنوب غربی در دست سودان و مقابل آن یعنی شمال غربی در دست بربر است».

As pointed it out already, Aryan/Iran is the Parthia/Middle Persian form of the word Iran. 

Having problem with history, Asgharzadeh/Poorpirar/Zehtabi will try to manipulate the truth, but they have failed miserably

 

 

Rezashah/Khiyabani/Khazal/Ferqeh

Alireza Asgharzadeh starts chapter 4 by inserting an emotional quote about the misbehavior of one of the Azerbaijani generals of Rezashah in Luristan.  No where in his book does Alireza Asgharzadeh mention that Rezashah was half caucasian (through his mother NooshAfarin who was either Azeri or Tati) and only half Tabari (Mazandarani).  No where does he mention that Rezashah spoke Turkish well and the wife of Rezashah was a Qajar and daughter of Teymur Khan Ayrimlu.  This would make Mohammad Rezashah ¾ Azerbaijani and we all know the wife of Mohammad Rezashah, Farah the Queen was Azerbaijani as well.  Indeed the majority if not all of the people who advocated linguistic integration for Azerbaijan of Iran were Azerbaijanis themselves: Mahmud Afshar, Javad Sheykh ol Eslami, Taqi Arani, Ahmad Kasravi, Nateq Naseh and so on.  So Azerbaijani’s had the heaviest presence in the Pahlavid regime and cultural life and at no point or time, were they oppressed by “Persians” where-as the Pahlavi’s themselves were more Azerbaijani than Persian ethnically.

Here is a video of Rezashah talking Turkish with Ataturk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ql0Oe42Nk8

 

Asgharzadeh relies heavily on selective quoting of William Douglass, a traveler and a non-scholar on the events relating to the Ferqeh Democrat party in Azerbaijan.  William Douglas, a supreme court justice traveled in the summer of 1949-1950 to Iran and recorded some of his finding.  It should be noted that he is not a scholar of the Middle East or Iran but just wrote a personal diary.  So using him a source is a major weakness of the book of Asgharzadeh although of course the source is not absurd like the fancies of Poorpirar/Zehtabi.  We should note that in the book of William Douglas, Persian and Iranian are used synomously and in no way does “Persian” in that book denote only Persian-Dari speakers.  To make a point, William Douglas uses Persian for Azerbaijani people as well.  Also it is important to note that Rezashah and his effort at centralization came into conflict with many tribes who ruled regions as their own fiefdoms.  Some of these tribes though allied with central government and some of them went against the central government.  There was nothing ethnic about these conflicts as many of the leaders of the army and the tribes allied with the army were themselves Lurs or Baluchs or Azerbaijanis (Shahsevans).  For example the Shahsevans fought valiantly against the Ferqeh of Pishevari as well.  We do not need to go into the details of these matters as they require their own book and dispassionate analysis.  But again it is sufficient to note that there was absolutely no ethnic component in the settlement (sometimes forced) by the central government of Rezashah.  It is also impossible to find a Persian-Dari speaking general or high ranking member in the army of Rezashah.  Case in point, colonel Ahmadi who is called the “Butcher of Luristan” was himself Azerbaijani and Rezashah himself was half Azerbaijani.  Indeed, if anything, the Lurs being descendant of ancient Persians should have gotten prefential treatment if the Pahlavid regime was indeed “aryanist” regime as pan-Turkists claim.  But this was not the case. 

Asgharzadeh also relies heavily on Abdullah Shahbazi (a historian that is very supportive of IRI), Reza Beraheni (an anti-Persian racist with a strong leftist orientation) and Muhammad Gholi Majd, a descendant of Qajars to support his conspiracy theoriest against Reza Shah.  Sometimes cherry picking quotes from here and there to support an incoherent theory.

Here is how Asgharzadeh quotes William Douglas in the beginning of Chapter 4:

“Lur after Lur was beheaded. Again and again the plate was heated red hot and slapped on the stub of a neck. Once the colonel was slow with the plate, and the blood shot five feet in the air. The colonel started betting on how far these headless men could run. He and the soldiers would shout and yell, encouraging each victim to do his best. . . . The colonel won most of the bets. He won a thousand rials... on the headless Lur who ran fifteen paces after he was beheaded. .. . The colonel became a general and later Minister of War in Reza Shah government. He was the Butcher of Luristan, Amir Ahmadi.(Excerpts from narratives of a Luristani man, cited in Douglas, 1951, pp. 107-108)”

It is worthwhile to quote all of William Douglas and to see how Asgharzadeh cherry picks his quote(William Douglas, Strange Lands and Friendly People (New York, 1951)):

“The great impoverishment of the Lurs is due in part to the pillag­ing of the tribes by the Persian Army. The tragedy traces back to the policy of Reza Shah, who set about to subjugate them.  Reza Shah was an Army officer who reached the Persian throne as a result of a coup d'etat in 1925. He did some great and good things for Persia. The famous resort at Ramsar on the Caspian is one.  In a few areas he built clean, attractive houses for peasants. The tearing of veils from the faces of Moslem women stands to his credit.  Roads, schools, reservoirs, parks—these and other projects have left his stamp on the nation.  But his program against the tribes ended in murder and pillage. His plan was to break their feudal ties, rid them of their migratory habits, and settle them permanently in villages—and he used all means to accomplish this end. To what extent Reza Shah was personally responsible for the tragedy that befell the Lurs is a matter of debate. Perhaps he did not know what his army did; perhaps he closed his eyes. But one of the most shame­ful chapters was written by one of his colonels—known throughout all Persia as the Butcher of Luristan.

 

In 1936 the government decided to put a paved highway through Luristan. The Lurs opposed the scheme. There were skirmishes be­tween the army and the tribe. Troubles erupted throughout Luristan. An outstanding general of the Persian Army was ambushed and killed by some Lurs at a spot where a short concrete bridge now crosses a ravine a few miles south of Khorramabad. The Lurs at once moved on the city and took it, and occupied the Fort, a huge pillar of fortified rock several blocks square that rises two hundred feet or more from the middle of the town. They were exultant and defiant. They now controlled the heart of Luristan. The plans of Reza Shah to break up the tribe, destroy its leadership, and resettle the tribesmen on land had received a serious setback.  A young colonel was ordered out of Tehran to Khorramabad (Comment: Douglas means the Azerbaijani colonel Amir Ahmadi). He laid siege to the Fort. Day after day troops poured in and tight­ened fast their grip on the surrounding countryside. Supplies and reinforcements to- the Fort were cut off. The process of strangula­tion set in. In about a month the Fort capitulated. The leaders of the Lurs—eighty in number—were hanged.

 

"We kept them on the gallows for three days," an officer told me. "We wanted to make sure that their example was impressed on the Lurs."

 

The rest of what happened can best be related by an old man-perhaps eighty years of age. I met him on a wind-blown plain of Luristan, in a hut that was open on one side, its walls and roof thatched with boughs of oak. I had come to the hut to inquire if I could take a picture of its interior. On my appearance a woman, who had been sitting weaving, quickly vanished through a rear exit. The man, also seated, looked up with a troubled face and asked, "Is it necessary to take a picture of us in our misery?"

 

His tired, anxious face had a patrician look. There was dignity in his features, pride in his voice. I was embarrassed and ashamed at my intrusion. I closed my camera and asked if I might come in. He rose, bowed, and with a gracious sweep of his arm invited me to join him on his rug.

 

We talked of the mountains that lay against the skyline on the west. Wolves, leopards, goats, and ibexes live there.   In the lower reaches one finds many partridges and wild pigeons. The old man spoke of his early hunts; he mentioned American Army officers who came up here to hunt during the days of the Persian Gulf Command and told how he helped them plan their trips. He liked the Americans. He spoke of huge fish—perhaps sturgeon—in the Kashgan River which rises in the northwest and flows by Khor­ramabad to the Gulf.

 

He rambled on and on. Finally there came a moment of silence when I broke in to ask him about his misery which he had mentioned earlier. He spoke then of the poverty and hunger of the Lurs, of the lack of schools and of doctors, and of those who died of starva­tion last winter. He himself had barely kept body and soul together. The bitter acorns of the oaks had saved his life.

"And what about Amir Ahmadi?" I asked.

 

He looked at me quizzically and then shook his head. The story was slow in coming; it took much persuasion and a promise that I would never disclose his identity. Finally it poured from his lips in whispered tones:

"We were camped not far from here. There were twenty huts in all—over one hundred people. We had several thousand sheep and goats, a few hundred cattle, and many dozens of horses. Some of our young men had been with our khans at the Fort. They were all killed. Our khans were hanged. The Army had won. The battle of resistance was over. The road which Reza Shah wanted to build would now be built.

"A few days later I saw a cloud of dust across the plain. Horsemen were coming on a gallop. As they came closer, I saw that they were an Army troop. A colonel was in command. They came right at us, the colonel shouting orders. The men dismounted and started shoot­ing. There were babies in baskets in some of our tents; the soldiers put revolvers to the heads of the little ones and blew their brains out. Women were screaming from all the huts. My wife was cower­ing in a corner. I stood before her. Two soldiers rushed toward us. I seized a knife. Then there were shots. I was knocked to the earth and lost consciousness.

 

"When I awoke my wife was lying across me. Her warm blood ran down my chest. She died from bullet wounds in her breast. I had been shot through the neck, and left for dead.

 

"I did not move, because the colonel and his troops were still there. I could see them through my half-closed eyes. You may not believe me when I tell you what I saw. But by the bread of my house I swear it is true."

There was a long silence before the old man continued. The wind whisked a whirlwind of dust into the hut, stinging our eyes. For several minutes a lizard had been exploring the prospects of join­ing us. Suddenly he was startled and turned and ran. He ran so fast that his front legs left the ground and it looked as if he might take flight like a miniature jet plane. The old man and I watched the lizard as he disappeared into a patch of licorice root. Then he turned to me and told me the story that still lives in his head like a nightmare.

 

The Asian ways and means of arranging death and torture are ancient and numerous. Finely ground whiskers of the leopard mixed with food is said to be good. It causes ulceration of the intestines; and death is a lingering affair.

A good poison is extracted from a beetle. When served in coffees it causes sure death.

 

The Mongols had a victim stick his head through a knothole and then twisted it off. Or they pulled the man through an opening only half large enough for him.  Pouring hot lead on top of a shaved head is said to make the eyes pop out.  Starving a victim to death by chaining him in a dungeon half filled with water-was painfully revengeful. 

 

One Persian Shah, Agha Mohammed (Comment: Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar was actually Turkic speaker), who had been castrated when a boy, took horrible revenge on society. Once he ordered thirty thousand pairs of human eyes brought to him; and he counted them himself to make certain his order had been obeyed.

 

The Lurs themselves developed sadistic means of punishment, History records that they sometimes boiled their victims alive.

 

But the deeds of the colonel, as related to me by the old man, had a unique and hideous twist.

"The colonel had ordered some of our young men to be held as captives. Meanwhile he built a fire of charcoal I soon discovered what he was doing. He had an iron plate so big [indicating a plate about eight inches long, six inches wide, and a quarter of an inch thick]. He heated this until it was red hot. He had his men bring up one of the Lurs. Two soldiers held the prisoner, one on each side. A third soldier stood with a sword behind the prisoner. The colonel gave the signal. The man with the sword swung. As the sword hit the prisoner's neck, the colonel shouted, 'Run.' The head dropped to the ground. The colonel pressed the red hot plate on the stub of the man's neck. The headless man took a step and fell.

 

" Give me the tall one/ the colonel shouted. He can run better than that.”

 

"The same process was repeated. The tall man, when beheaded, ran a few paces. Lur after Lur was beheaded. Again and again the plate was heated red hot and slapped on the stub of a neck. Once the colonel was slow with the plate; and the blood shot five feet in the air."

The old man stopped to wet his lips.

 

"The colonel started betting on how far these headless men could run. He and the soldiers would shout and yell, encouraging each victim to do his best."  The old man paused, his anger swelling up as he relived this ex­perience.

"Who won the betting contest?" I asked. He waited several min­utes before he would speak.

 

"The colonel won most of the bets. He won a thousand rials, 1 think, on the headless Lur who ran fifteen paces after he was be­headed."

The old man seemed exhausted from the telling of the story. He poured tea from an ancient samovar. We sipped it in silence. After we had finished, I asked, "What did the colonel do next?"

"He ran off all our stock—sheep, goats, cattle, and horses. The next day a dozen lorries came. All our rugs, samovars, dishes, jewelry, clothes—every possession was loaded in these wagons and taken away by the Army."

"And what of yourself?"

"I dragged myself to a spring in a ravine and washed my wound. I was too weak to move for two nights. Then I went back to bury the dead. Every man, woman, and child had been killed. Not a living soul was left. The vultures had got there before me."

"What happened to the colonel?" I inquired.

"The colonel? Oh, he became a general and later Minister of War."

"Is he still alive?"

 

"Very much so. He lives in Tehran. The loot he got from our villages filled dozens of lorries. Tens of thousands of sheep and goats were stolen. How the colonel divided it up among his soldiers I do not know. What higher-ups shared in the plunder I do not know. But the colonel is today a very rich man. He bought several hundred houses in Tehran with the plunder." There was scorn in his voice, as he spit out the words: "The Butcher, amir ahmadi."

The sun was setting as I rose to go. The old man took me warmly by the hand and held it as he looked deeply into my eyes and asked for reassurance that I would not reveal his identity. After a minute he said, "I am a Persian. I love my country. I would gladly give my life for it. But I hate the Army. God in his time will wreak a vengeance." He dropped his eyes; and when, after a moment he looked up, there was fire in them.

'We fear Russia. We know that the Soviets are an enemy of our people. But we also have one right in our midst,"

I met Amir Ahmadi at a garden party in Tehran. He is stocky and erect, and shows the age of a man in his early sixties. He has a fierce black mustache, piercing eyes, and prominent gold teeth. He speaks Persian, Russian, and Turkish. Trained in the Cossack Army in Russia, he still bears some of the marks of its arrogance and daring. It was reflected in a lucid moment of idle conversation. .

"What is your relationship to the people of Luristan today?” a lady asked.

"Oh, they think highly of me" he replied. "I am a household word."

"In what way?”

He laughed as he replied, showing his gold teeth, "Why in Luri­stan if a child cries the mother says, 'Hush or Amir Ahmadi will get you."

 

Thus Asgharzadeh conviently ignores many facts.  The cruelty of the Qajars described by the Luri man.  The fact that Amir Ahmadi himself was not a native Persian speaker but was an Azerbaijani like most of Reza Shah’s military.  The fact that Reza Shah can arguably be called half Persian (his dad is said to be from Mazandaran).  The fact that the author, Douglas, also describes many positive acts by Reza Shah.  Finally, the fact that the Luri man still loved Iran and was not some sort of pan-Turkist separatist cursing at Iran’s history and heritage like Asgharzadeh type pan-Turkists.

 

Asgharzadeh then claims:

“Throughout Iran, various anticolonial and antioppression movements started to form. For instance, a liberation movement took place in southern Azerbaijan in 1919-1920, led by Sheikh Mohammed Khiabani, a progressive Azeri nationalist. Khiabani's "Democratic Party of Azerbaijan" put out a newspaper called Tajaddud [Progress] and began spreading revolutionary and democratic ideas in Azerbaijan. Invoking the memory of the 1906 Constitutional Revolution, Khiabani came to symbolize Sattar Khan, the legendary leader of Iran's Constitutional Movement. Within a short period, the Khiabani movement was able to gain the support of the Azerbaijani people, disarm the central government's forces, and declare Azerbaijan an autonomous republic called Azadistan or "the Land of Freedom" (Azeri, 1955)”

Khiabani was definitely not a pan-Turkist (what Asgharzadeh means by Azeri nationalists).  Although Asgharzadeh does not mention it, but the newspaper Tajaddud was in Persian only.   Also Khiabani never claimed his land to be “Southern Azerbaijan”.  According to Tadeusz Swietochowsi:

“AZADISTAN (LAND OF FREEDOM).
The name given to Iran's province of Azerbaijan by the autonomist-regional regime of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan (DPAz) under Shaikh Muhammad Khiabani following the April 1920 revolt against the central government of Iran. The leaders of the DPAz chose the name "Azadistan" to emphasize the distinction between it and the independent republic of Azerbaijan under the Baku regime, and partly to serve as a model of freedom and independence for the rest of Iran.”

(Tadeusz Swietochowski and Brian C. Collins.  Historical dictionary of Azerbaijan.  Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 1999.)

Also it should be remembered that Khiabani fought against pan-Turkism. 

“However, by the summer of 1919, when the Ottoman troops returned to Azerbaijan, the honeymoon for the Democrats was over.  Yusuf Zia, a civilian political adviser to the Ottomon army, saw to it that the rank and file of the Democrats was broken and dispersed.  Once again the old tattered banner of Ittihad-I Islam  was hoised aloft.  With the support of Khiyabani’s opponents, Yusuf Zia intensified his activities, in particular by initating a new campaign of pan-Turkism.  An important instrument for the propagation of pan-Turkish ideals throughout the province of Azerbaijan was the newspaper Azarabadegan which was founded at this time.  Shortly after the arrival of the Ottoomans, Khiyabani, Nowbari and Badamchi were arrested and sent into exile. “

Interestingly enough, Shaykh Ali Heyat (the father of the pan-Turkist Javad Heyat) opposed Shaykh Mahmud Khiyabani and was one of the heads of the “Heyat Ittihad-I Islam”, an organization created by the Ottomons for the separation of Iran.  Thus some of the pan-Turkists in Iran have more than a generation of cooperation with the Ottomons/Anatolian pan-Turkists.  Not once has Asgharzadeh referred to the Ottomon attempt at the separation of Azerbaijan during World War I.

On Shaykh Khaza’l, Asgharzadeh writes:

“In the province of Arabistan (now Khuzistan), Sheikh Khaz'al continued to challenge the dictatorial rule of Reza Khan in the country. The sheikh enjoyed the backing and support of the local population and considered himself to be the legitimate ruler of Arabistan.”

Asgharzadeh does not seem to know that the name Khuzistan pre-dates Arabistan by at least 1000 years and has been used continuously since at least Parthian times.  Also the province of Khuzestan is a multi-lingual province with both Indo-Iranian elements (Lurs, Persian speakers, Bakhtiaris) and Arabs.  For example the majority of the province including Dezhpul, Andishmak, Shushtar, Iydzhe, Masjid Soleyman, Ram-Hormoz, Behbahan, Mahshahr, Aghajari, Haftgel, Dehdozh, Lali, Baghmak, Hendijan, Haft Teppeh and Bandar Imam are all Bakhtiari/Persian/Luri speaking.  Furthermore the name Khuzestan has been used since ancient times.  For further information on the antiquity and contious use of this name:

 

خوزستان و تمامیت ارضی ایران

دکتر جلال متینی، برگرفته از مجله ی ایرانشناسی

 

The Hodoo al-Alam, written around the 10th century A.D. (when the name Arabistand did not exist) for example says under “Khuzestan”:

ناحيتى ست كه مشرق وى پارس است و حدود سپاهان، و جنوب وى درياست

Translation: It is a place where its eastern border are Pars and Sepahan, the souther border is the Sea.

- ناشناخته، حدود العالم من المشرق الى المغرب، تصحيح منوچهر ستوده، تهران، ١٣٤٠، ص ١٥٧-١٦٤.

Similarly Al-Moqaddesi under Khuzestan writes:”Ahvaz is its center and its cities are Shush, JundiShapur, Shushtar, ‘Askar, Duraq, Ramhormoz” and called Khuzestan a “’ajami” (In General non-Arab but in particular Persian)”. 

مقدسى، احسن التقاسيم فى معرفة الاقاليم، ترجمهء علينقى منزوى، تهران، ١٣٦١، ج٢/ ٥٥٤-٥٥٥.

 

Other sources can be mentioned including Ibn Hawqal, Al-Kamil of Ibn Athir..and etc.  But proably the oldest source using the name Khuzistan is the Parthian form of the Sassanid Kaba Zardhust inscription.  In it, the “Parthian text uses the term Hwzstan obviously the forerunner of modern Khuzistan.” .(The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of the Ancient Iranian State. By D. T. POTTS. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIV. PRESS, 1999. pg 415)

 

As per Shaykh Khazal, Asgharzadeh does not mention his British connection.  On the other hand, British officials themselves admit to this.  Sir Dennis Wright, an honorary fellow of St. Edmund Hall and St. Antony’s college and the British ambassador to Iran from 1963-1971 describes the British meddling in Iranian affairs through the support of Shaykh khazal(Sir Denis Wright, The English Amongst the Persians: Imperial Lives in Nineteenth-Century Iran, I.B.Tauris, 2001):

“The Persian Government were less impressed. They had long been distrustful of the Shaikh's close relations with the British, whose ships, as they steamed up the Shatt al-Arab past his palace, had for years fired a salute in memory of some helpful action by his father. Shaikh Khazal, who had no love for the Persian authorities, had deliberately neglected seeking the permission of the Shah, whose subject he was, before accepting his British decoration. Not surprisingly the Tehran press were critical of his behavior while the Persian Government correctly suspected that, in addition to the K.C.I.E., he had reached some understanding with the British for the protection of his semi-independent position. When in December 1910, three months after the investiture, the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs asked the British Minister in Tehran whether it was true that the Shaikh enjoyed the British Government's protection, he was told that the Shaikh was not a British Protected Person but that the British had special relations with him and in the event of any encroachment on his rights they would give him their support. The Persian Government were at the time far too weak to react strongly to this admission of British support for one of their more independent and powerful tribal chiefs. For their part the British had given their assurances reluctantly to an importunate Shaikh in the knowledge that without his goodwill Britain 's political and commercial interests in southern Persia were at risk, since the authority of the Tehran Government in those parts was totally ineffective. In 1919, at the end of World War I, the British Government presented the Shaikh with a river steamer for his services during the war: they also gave him 3,000 rifles and ammunition to enable him to protect the installations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and cover die withdrawal of British forces from Khuzistan. But neither these nor the 1910 promise, albeit carefully qualified of support ‘in the event of any encroachment by the Persian Government your jurisdiction and recognised rights, or on your property in Persia' were of any avail against the determined centralising policy of Reza Shah, in whose hands Shaikh Khazal died a virtual prisoner in 1936.”

 

Given the fact that the name Khuzestan is very ancient and has been used continuously, and given the fact that Arab speakers are a minority in Khuzestan (there are large number of Lurs/Bakhtiaris/Persian speakers), the name Khuzestan is the natural and historic designation for this area.  Unlike what Asgharzadeh claims, the name was not madeup by Reza Shah.

 

Asgharzadeh quotes Abrahamian on pg 88 about minority schools being closed during the era of Reza Shah.  But these minority schools were religious Armenian and Jewish schools.  They were not Muslim minority schools. 

 

 

Finally we move unto the Ferqeh.  It is worth noting that not one Asgharzadeh mentions that the Ferqeh was undemocratic, a Soviet puppet and was externally created.  In order to dispel the myth that Ferqeh was home growth movement, we have no choice but to copy actually declassified USSR documents.

 

These archives can be found here (Cold War International History Project):

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=1945%2D46%20Iranian%20Crisis

 

The First Decree:

 

Decree of the USSR State Defense Committee No 9168 SS Regarding Geological Prospecting Work for Oil in Northern Iran

Date:
06/21/1945

Source:
State Archive of Political Parties and Social Movements of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Baku (GAPPOD AzR), f.1, op. 89. d.104. Obtained by Jamil Hasanli. Translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg.

Description:
Stalin orders the begining of oil geological prospect work and oil drilling in Northern Iran during the Soviet occupation of the region.



COPY
TOP SECRET

The State Defense Committee
Decree of the GOKO [State Defense Committee] No. 9168SS of 21 June 1945
Moscow, the Kremlin

Geological Prospecting Work for Oil in Northern Iran

With the objective of geological prospecting and drilling work for oil in northern Iran, the State Defense Committee DECREES:

1. Organize within the “Azneft’” [Azerbaijani Oil] Association of the Narkomneft’ [the People’s Commissariat for Oil] a Hydro-geological Directorate and entrust to this organization the supervision of geological prospecting for oil deposits in northern Iran.

2. To conduct this prospecting work in northern Iran hold Narkomneft’ (Cde. Baybakov) and Azneft’ (Cde. Vezirov) responsible for supplying the necessary quantity of workers from the oil industry for drilling and prospecting teams and sending them to the place of work in the form of a hydro-geological detachment created in the staff of the Soviet troops in Iran (Qazvin).

3. Establish a mission for the hydro-geological detachment to conduct the following work in northern Iran:

a) Drilling
10 pumps in 7 areas, including 3 stationary pumps (deep rotary drilling) in the areas of Shakhi, Bandar-Shah, and Mianeh;
4 stationary pumps (deep structural search drilling) in the areas of Shah, Bolgar-Chay, and Khoy;
3 mobile drilling units for structural search drilling in the areas of Bandar-Shah, Shaha-Babol’ser, and Pahlavi;

b) Geological Survey – one expedition comprising 10 teams in the areas of: the Gorgan Steppe, Ashraf-Shaha- Amol’, Khorramabad, Bolgar-Chai, Jul’fa-Zanjan, Tabriz- Ardebil’, and Ku-I-Gitcha-Siyakh-Ku;

c) Geological Prospecting – one expedition of 3 teams (gravimetric “Issing”, variometric and resistivity prospecting) in the areas: Gorgan Steppe, Mazanderan and Rasht lowlands, and along entire southern shore of the Caspian Sea from the border with the Turkmen SSR to the border with the Azerbaijan SSR.

Hold the Narkomneft’ (Cde. Baybakov) and Azneft’ (Cde. Vezirov) responsible for transferring the required drilling and prospecting equipment by 1 September 1945 to conduct the work to the required degree and [for] beginning drilling and prospecting work in September of 1945.

4. Hold the Narkomneft’ (Cde. Baybakov) responsible for organizing and dispatching by 1 August 1945: a geological survey expedition of 10 teams; a well-logging and electrometer team; a geophysical expedition of 3 teams (gravimetric “Issing”, variometric ((2 instruments)) and resistivity prospecting) by removing these teams from the following regions: the gravimetric “Issing” [team] from Baku; the variometric [team] (2 instruments) from the Middle Volga Branch of the Narkomneft’ Geophysical Trust; the resistivity [team] from the area of Krasnodar.

5. With the objective of equipping the hydro-geological detachment with the necessary equipment, instruments, and material hold [the following] responsible:

a) the Narkomneft’ (Cde. Baybakov) is to allocate and ship to the Hydro-geological Directorate in August 1945: 5 sets of pumps, drilling equipment, and a rotary drilling instrument; 4 sets of ZV-750 frames, drilling equipment, and the instrument for them; 3 sets of rods (1200 meters) and an instrument for KA-300 pumps, and other necessary equipment and materials for the work of the hydro-geological detachment;

b) the Narkomvneshtorg [People’s Commissariat for Foreign Trade] (Cde. Mikoyan) is to allocate to the hydro-geological detachment in June-July 1945 15 truck-tractors and 120 trucks from imports from the unassembled ones in Iran;

c) the Commanding General of the Trans-Caucasus Front, Cde. Tyulenev, is to allocate to the hydro-geological detachment the necessary office space and living quarters in Qazvin and at work locations, and also render aid with personnel from military units in assembling the 120 vehicles allocated to the hydro-geological detachment;

d) the USSR NKO [People’s Commissariat of Defense] (Cde. Vorob’yev [Marshal of Engineer Troops, M. P., Chief of Engineer Troops of the Soviet Army]) is, by 1 August 1945, to transfer to the disposition of the hydro-geological detachment in Iran two complete AVB-2-100 mobile drilling units in working order: a drilling machine AVB-2-100, a ZIS- 5 water tanker, a 1.5 ton vehicle with an instrument and one UA-125 frame with three drilling teams;

e) the USSR NKO ( [General of the Army, Chief of the Rear of the Soviet Army] Cde. Khrulev) is to send to the hydro-geological detachment in working order 5 MAK 12- ton vehicles, 7 logging truck trailers, and 15 Willys vehicles, and also provide for the repair of drilling equipment and automotive transport in repair shops of the Soviet transport directorate in Iran.

6. Hold the Commanding General of the Trans-Caucasus Front, Cde. Tyulenev, responsible for rendering aid to the hydro-geological detachment in drilling and geological prospecting work [by] providing a guard force, an escort for the expeditions, providing cartographic materials, and also providing personnel of the hydro-geological detachment with clothing and appropriate documents.

7. Hold the Narkomfin [People’s Commissariat of Finance] (Cde. Zverev) responsible in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 1945 with allocating to the Narkomneft’ 8 million rubles, including 2,400,000 in rials for the Hydro-geological Directorate of the Azneft’ Association to obtain transport equipment and materials and for the maintenance of personnel.

8. Permit the NKVD of the Azerbaijan SSR to issue permission for entry into Iran of personnel sent by the Narkomneft’ and the Azneft’ Association for the business of the Hydro-geological Directorate.

9. Confirm as Chief of the Hydro-geological Directorate Cde. Melik-Pashayev, V. S.; Chief of the Hydrogeological Directorate in the staff of the Soviet troops in Iran; Cde. Geydarov, N. G.; and as Deputy Chief of the Hydrogeological Directorate Cde. Kornev, A. N.

10. Hold Narkomneft’ (Cde. Baybakov) and the Azneft Association (Cde. Vezirov) responsible for personally exercising control over the supply of the hydro-geological detachment with personnel, engineering and technical workers, and provisioning with equipment and materials to carry out drilling and geological prospecting work in northern Iran.

11. Hold the Secretary of the CP(b) CC of Azerbaijan, Cde. Bagirov, responsible for rendering the Hydrogeological Directorate of the Azneft’ Association all possible aid and observing the geological prospecting work for oil in northern Iran.

Chairman of the State Defense Committee
I. Stalin

Attested: [not signed]


http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif


Collection

1945-46 Iranian Crisis

Creator

Joseph V. Stalin

Contributor

 

Type

Decree

Subject

Soviet foreign policy, Soviet goals, Soviet policy

Coverage

Azerbaijan, Soviet Socialist Republic of, Iran

Relation

Cold War Origins, The Cold War in the Middle East

Lang

English

Publisher

CWIHP

Rights

CWIHP

Format

Translation

Identifier:

5034F23D-96B6-175C-9FE97CF257D17EFA

 

The Second Decree:

 

Decree of the CC CPSU Politburo to Mir Bagirov CC Secretary of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, on “Measures to Organize a Separatist Movement in Southern Azerbaijan and Other Provinces of Northern Iran”

Date:
07/06/1945

Source:
Source: GAPPOD AzR, f. 1, op. 89, d. 90, ll. 4-5. Obtained by Jamil Hasanli. Translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg

Description:
The Soviet leadership informs the leadership of the CPAz CC of the decisions taken regarding the need to organize a separatist movement in Northern Iran. The document sets up a step by step plan to insure that the population in Northern Iran can be manipulated to declare independence and join the Azerbaijan SSR.



[Handwritten across the upper left-hand corner: “One copy for Yemel’yanov.”]


TOP SECRET

To Cde. Bagirov

Measures to Organize a Separatist Movement in Southern Azerbaijan and Other Provinces in Northern Iran

1. Consider it advisable to begin preparatory work to form a national autonomous Azerbaijan district [oblast’] with broad powers within the Iranian state.
At the same time develop a separatist movement in the provinces of Gilyan, Mazandaran, Gorgan, and Khorasan.

2. Establish a democratic party in Southern Azerbaijan under the name “Azerbaijan Democratic Party” with the objective of guiding the separatist movement. The creation of the Democratic Party in Southern Azerbaijan is to be done by a corresponding reorganization of the Azerbaijani branch of the People’s Party of Iran and drawing into it supporters of the separatist movement from all strata of the population.

3. Conduct suitable work among the Kurds of northern Iran to draw them into the separatist movement to form a national autonomous Kurdish district.

4. Establish in Tabriz a group of responsible workers to guide the separatist movement, charging them with coordinating [kontaktirovat’] their work with the USSR General Consulate in Tabriz.
Overall supervision of this group is entrusted to Bagirov and Yakubov.

5. Entrust the Azerbaijan CP(b) CC (Bagirov and Ibragimov) with developing preparatory work to hold elections in Southern Azerbaijan to the 15th Convocation of the Iranian Majlis, ensuring the election of deputies who are supporters of the separatist movement on the basis of the following slogans:

a) Allotment of land to the peasants from state and large landowning holdings and awarding long-term monetary credit to the peasants;

b) Elimination of unemployment by the restoration and expansion of work at enterprises and also by developing road construction and other public works;

c) Improvement of the organization of public amenities of cities and the public water supply;

d) Improvement in public health;

e) Use of no less than 50% of state taxes for local needs;

f) Equal rights for national minorities and tribes: opening schools and publication of newspapers and books in the Azerbaijani, Kurdish, Armenian, and Assyrian languages; court proceedings and official communications in local institutions in their native language; creating a provincial administration, including the gendarmerie and police, from local national elements; formation of regional, district, and city enjumens [and] local self-governing bodies.

g) Radical improvement in Soviet-Iranian relations.

6. Combat groups armed with weapons of foreign manufacture are to be created with the objective of selfdefense for pro-Soviet people [and] activists of the separatist movement of democratic and Party organizations. Entrust Cde. [Nicolai] Bulganin together with Cde. Bagirov with carrying out this point.

7. Organize a Society for Cultural Relations Between Iran and the Azerbaijani SSR to strengthen cultural and propaganda work in Southern Azerbaijan.

8. To draw the broad masses into the separatist movement, [we] consider it necessary to create a “Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan” in Tabriz with branches in all regions of Southern Azerbaijan and Gilyan.

9. Entrust the CC CP(b) of Azerbaijan with organizing publication of an illustrated magazine in Baku for distribution in Iran and also three new newspapers in Southern Azerbaijan.

10. Commit the OGIZ [State Publishing House](Yudin) to allocating three flat-bed printing presses for the use of the CC CP(b) of Azerbaijan to create printing resources [tipografskaya baza] for the Democratic Party of Southern Azerbaijan.

11. Commit the Narkomvneshtorg [People’s Commissariat for Foreign Trade] (Cde. [Anastas] Mikoyan) with providing good paper for the publication of the illustrated magazine in Baku and also the three new daily newspapers in Southern Azerbaijan; the total press run is to be no less than 30,000 copies.

12. Permit the NKVD of the Azerbaijan SSR, under the observation of Cde. Bagirov, to issue permission for departure to Iran and return from Iran of persons being sent on business connected with putting these measures into effect.

13. To finance the separatist movement in Southern Azerbaijan and also to hold elections to the 15th Convocation of the Iranian Majlis; to create in the CC CP(b) of Azerbaijan a special fund of one million foreign-currency rubles (“for conversion into tumans”).

6 July 1945
CC VKP(b) Politburo

Distribution: 1-2 Cde. Molotov; 3-4 Cde. Bagirov;5- Cde. Kavtaradze.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif


Collection

1945-46 Iranian Crisis

Creator

 

Contributor

 

Type

Action Memorandum

Subject

 

Coverage

 

Relation

The Cold War in the Middle East

Lang

English

Publisher

CWIHP

Rights

CWIHP

Format

Translation

Identifier:

5034F21E-96B6-175C-91FB9BFAF40CE44F

 

The Third Decree:

 

Secret Soviet Instructions on Measures to Carry out Special Assignments throughout Southern Azerbaijan and the Northern Provinces of Iran in an attempt to set the basis for a separatist movement in Northern Iran.

Date:
07/14/1945

Source:
GAPPOD AzR, f. 1, op. 89, d. 90, ll. 9-15. Obtained by Jamil Hasanli. Translated for CWIHP by Gary Goldberg.

Description:
Soviet document with instructions on creating the Azerbaijan Democratic Party in provinces in Southern Azerbaijan and Northern Iran. The Soviet leadership suggests that the mass media



Strictly Secret

Measures to carry out special assignments throughout Southern Azerbaijan and the northern provinces of Iran

I. The Question of Creating the Azerbaijani Democratic Party

1. Immediately organize [the] transport of Pishevari and Kombakhsh to Baku for talks. Depending on the results of the talks keep in mind [the] transport to Baku of Padekan [sic! “Padegan” in other documents], the Chairman of the District Committee of the People’s Party of Azerbaijan.

2. To create organizing committees in the center (Tabriz) and elsewhere [na mestakh], within a month select candidates from authoritative democratic elements from the intelligentsia, middle-class merchants, small and average landowners, and the clergy in various democratic parties, and also from non-party members and bring them into the organizing committees of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party.

The first priority is to create an organizing committee in Tabriz which, via the existing democratic press Khavar Nou, Azhir, Dzhodat and others, will publish an appeal to organize an Azerbaijani Democratic Party and print leaflets.

3. With the appearance of the appeal, initiative groups elsewhere will speak out in the press in its support and create Azerbaijani Democratic Party committees from the most active organizations of the People’s Party and other democratic organizations and elements.

Do not permit a mechanical renaming of organizations of the People’s Party to committees of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party. Recommend that the Tabriz district committee and its local organizations of the People’s Party discuss the appeal of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party, decide to disband the organizations of the People’s Party and enter its members in the Azerbaijani Democratic Party.

4. After establishing the organizing committee of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party in Tabriz the first priority is to create local committees of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party in the following cities: Ardebil’, Rezaye, Khoy, Mianeh, Zanjan, Maraghe, Marand, Mahabad, Maku, Qazvin, Rasht, Pahlavi, Sari, Shakh, Gorgan, and Mashhad.

Send representatives of the central organizing committee to organize the committees in these cities. Systematically place positive responses and calls to join the Azerbaijani Democratic Party in the democratic press.

5. Create a press agency in the organizing committee of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party in Tabriz under the name “Voice of Azerbaijan”.

6. Organize the drafting of programs and a charter for the Tabriz organizing committee.

II. Ensuring the Election of Deputies to the 15th Convocation of the Majlis

1. Begin talks with deputies of the Majlis who are supporting them during the elections to the Majlis for this convocation with the object of nominating these deputies to the 15th Convocation under the condition that they fight for the implementation of the slogans of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party.

2. Begin work to nominate candidates for deputy to the Majlis from democratic elements who would fight for the implementation of the slogans of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party.

3. Review the list of deputies recommended by the Embassy in light of [these] new tasks.

4. Organize a broad popularization of the selected candidates for election to the Majlis in the press and their contacts [and] meetings with voters.

5. Support meetings, demonstrations, strikes, and the disbanding [razgon] of electoral commissions unsuitable for us with the objective of ensuring our interests in the elections.

6. In the process of preparing for the elections, compromise and expel from the electoral districts of northern Iran candidates nominated by reactionary circles [who are] actively operating against the candidates of the democratic movement.

7. Demand the replacement of unsuitable reactionary-minded leaders of local bodies [vlasti].

III. Creation of the “Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan”

1. In the matter of organizing the “Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan”, use the delegates participating in the jubilee celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Azerbaijan SSR.

2. Recruit the workers of our consulates, military commandants, and their active [Party] members into the organization of the Society.

3. The organizing group of the “Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan” in Tabriz is to draw up the charter of the Society.

4. To widely attract the population to the “Society of Friends of Soviet Azerbaijan”, use the press to systematically illustrate the achievements of the economy, culture, and art of Soviet Azerbaijan and the historical friendship of the peoples of Southern Azerbaijan and the peoples of Soviet Azerbaijan.

IV. The Organization of the Separatist Movement

1. Organize work to develop a separatist movement to create: an Azerbaijani Autonomous District [and] a Kurdish Autonomous District with broad powers.

In Gorgan, Gilyan, Mazandaran, and Khorasan provinces organize the separatist movement along local [korennyye] questions, in particular:

in Gilyan Province:
The organization of public services and amenities in the cities of Rasht [and] Pahlavi, leaving no less than 50% of the tax proceeds collected from the province for this purpose;

in Gorgan Province:
Study in the native Turkmen language in the schools; replacement of the local organization, gendarmerie, and police with Turkomans, leaving no less than 50% of the tax proceeds collected from the province for public services, amenities, and health in Gonbad-e-Kavus, Gorgan, and Bandar Shah.

in Mazandaran and Khorasan Provinces:
1. Return of land to small and average landowners taken by Reza Shah (amlyak lands).

2. Leaving no less than 50% of tax proceeds collected from the province for public services and amenities of the cities of Sari, Shah, Mashhad, and New Quchan.
Additionally, bring to light locally such questions so as to organize a separatist movement in the above provinces.
Raise the demand to conduct land reform not only in Southern Azerbaijan but in [regions] regions of the northern provinces of Iran.

V. Organization of Enjumens

1. After creating the organizing committees of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party at the same time as work is conducted to elect deputies to the 15th Convocation of the Majlis, develop a campaign to organize enjumens, using the electoral enthusiasm of the population for this purpose.

VI. Organization of Press Organs

1. To organize all the agitation work via the press, establish a publishing house for new magazines in the cities of Rasht, Rezaye, and Mahabad in addition to the existing newspapers.

[illegible signatures]

14.7.45

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/../../images/spacer.gif


Collection

1945-46 Iranian Crisis

Creator

 

Contributor

 

Type

Action Memorandum

Subject

 

Coverage

Azerbaijan, Soviet Socialist Republic of, Iran

Relation

Cold War Origins

Lang

English

Publisher

CWIHP

Rights

 

Format

Translation

Identifier:

5034F1EF-96B6-175C-9D8F7E7DD4C1C757

 

 

 

 

 

It should be noted that these decrees were created by USSR high council and Stalin.  They were given to Mir Jafar Baghirov, the communist leader of Azerbaijan USSR.  He served under Stalin from 1932 to 1951. According to Tadeusz Swietochowski: “By 1940 an estimated 70,000 Azeris had died as a result of purges carried out under Baghirov” (Historical Dictionary of Azerbaijan, Asian/Oceanian Historical Dictionaries ; No. 31 by Swietochowski, Tadeusz Publication: Lanham, Md. Scarecrow Press, 1999).  The same killer is referred to as “Kind and Dear Father” by Pishevari in the letters addressed to him.   The letters are clear that Pishevari and the Ferqeh were created by the USSR and were not internal movements from within Iran.  For example here is how Pishevari address Mir Jafar Baghirov in Azarbaijani:

 

Aziz ve mehrabaan aataamiz Mir-Dja'far Baagherov! shomaalindaan aayrilmaaz  birhaseh oolaan djonoobi aazarbaaidjaan khalghi, donyaanin bootoon khalgh-lari kimi  omidgozooni booyook soviet khalghinah ve soviet dolatinah tikmishdir

 

English Translation:

The Khalgh (USSR term in Middle Eastern language for nation) of Southern Azerbaijan (a madeup name of USSR era) which is a inseparable part of Northern Azerbaijan (another soviet eraa made up name), like all the Khalghs (nations) of the world has towards its attention and hope to towards the great USSR nation and its government.

 

Asgharzadeh also uses the source (JAMI, 1983) written by pan-Turkists such as Reza Beraheni and Mohammad Ali Farzaneh (obviously an exile to Baku and pro-USSR) in order to describe the Ferqeh.  Just like Asgharzadeh, neither Mohammad Ali Farzaneh nor Reza Beraheni allude to the fact that Ferqeh was clearly a USSR puppet. 

 

Asgharzadeh writes:

“William Douglas, an American jurist who was traveling in Azerbaijan shortly after the democratic movement, notes, "I learned from my travels in Azerbaijan in 1950 that Pishevari was an astute politician who forged a program for Azerbaijan that is still enormously popular" (1951, p. 43):  Pishevari's program was so popular—especially land reform, severe punishment of public officials who took bribes, and price control—that if there had been a free election in Azerbaijan during the summer of 1950, Pishevari would have been restored to power by the vote of 90 per cent of the people. And yet, not a thousand people in Azerbaijan out of three million are communists. (Douglas, 1951, p. 50)  And finally, in the words of Swietochowski (1995), under the democratic government, "Azerbaijan had achieved more in one year than it had during

the twenty years of the Pahlavi regime" (p. 149).””

 

The problem with Asgharzadeh’s statement is that his sources contradict and Swietochowski clearly states that Ferqeh was not popular.  Indeed, William Douglass, who was a traveller, does not recognize Ferqeh as an independent entity either.  The main reason he gives for the popularity of the Ferqeh amongst peasants is due to the land reform and not due to any sort of ethnic politics.  But it should be noted that the analysis of Douglass contradicts itself on many fronts.  The first reason is that Douglass is from 1949 and thus any scholar that needs to examine the Ferqeh today should consult modern references.  Also given that Douglass was just a traveller, we do not know the people he met and talked to.  Let us examine wha both Douglass and Swietochowski state and how they contradict Asgharzadeh.

 

On the fall of the Kurdish republic of Mahabad, Douglass writes: “The Persian (Douglass uses the term Persian and Iranian army equivalently and no where does he use it to just denote army of ethnic Persian speakers.  He calls the people of Azerbaijan as Persians also.) Army entered Mahabad on December 15, 1946 without a shot being fired.  Their mass reception was friendly. 

 

Qazi Mohammad stood, not for separation from Persia, but for autonomy within it, claiming that the Kurds stemmed from the ancient Medes and, like their forbears, had a natural and historial role to perform in partnership with the Persians.

..

But the Khans deserted him – not because of his program of reform, but because of his Soviet support.”

 

All the analysis of the above is considered invalid today.  For example unlike the party of Pishevari which fleed to the USSR without providing even two day’s of resistance (which showed it’s complete lack of support), the party of Qazi Muhammad did actually resist the Iranian army and Qazi Muhammad himself did not flee USSR rule.  Also it is clear by USSR archival evidence that the intention of Qazi Muhammad was to separate Kurdistan from the rest of Iran.  Thus relying on a non-academic and non-eyewitness (Douglass did not visit Iran in 1945-1946 but in 1949) is really another weak point of Asgharzade’s book.  Let us bring some information from the introduction as well. 

 

 

“Azerbaijan is a historic place. Here Zoroaster lived in the sixth Century B.C. and taught the unending conflict between good and evil. This was the home of the Medes who, though they conquered Persia, were absorbed by it, losing themselves and their civilization in the process. The absorption was indeed so great that only one word of their language remains in the Persian vocabulary today— sag, the Medes word for dog. The Arabs came in the seventh. Century, Converting all of Persia to the Moslem religion at the point of the sword. In the middle thirteenth Century the Mongols swept through Azerbaijan burning and slaying as they went. They-made Maragheh their capital and later Tabriz and ruled two hundred years. Then came the Turks. Azerbaijan, the border province, was in the path of a host of invaders.  Azerbaijan was also the Staging ground for revolt—and a buffer for the whole realm of Persia. Its character has not changed in the intervening centuries. Twice in the nineteenth Century Russia in-vaded Azerbaijan; and in this Century several times—the last time in 1941.

…

Azerbaijan, being from time out of mind an international high-way, has seen the crossing of many races. The product is a people still Persian, but different from the rest. They speak a Turkish dialect which has absorbed many Persian words.”(Douglas, pg 40)

 

 

So it should be noted that while Asgharzadeh does not explain what the term “Persian army” means in this book, Douglass is clear that it means the Iranian army.  Thus Asgharzadeh is trying to manipulate his readers into thinking that the fight against tribes was due to “Persian ethnic army” where-as “Persian Army” in this book is actually the Iranian army (most of them at the time of Reza Shah being Azerbaijani). 



We note that Douglass while alluding that Pishevari was popular amongst peasants is also abundantly clear that his regime was a Russian puppet.  All the sudden changes and transformations were planned in advance by the USSR.  Douglas mention in one place: “Pishevari sponsored autonomy for Azerbaijan, but not Sepa­ration from Iran.“  where as today it is abundantly clear that Pishevari was put in place for separation of Iranian Azerbaijan.

 

Douglas though in other places clearly indicates the puppet nature of the Pishevari regime.

 

During this same period the Russians took more effective political measures. They undertook to organize a government in Azerbaijan wfaich they could leave behind when their army withdrew.(pg 42)

 

The man selected to head the government was a native of Azer­baijan, the son of a holy man—Jafar Pishevari.  Pishevari is a Com­munist who was educated in Baku and who taught in Communist schools in Russia.(pg 43)

 

Soviet Russia has played to the nationalist ambitions of the Kurds. Communists go among the tribesmen, posing as their champions. Their propaganda preaches freedom and release; it promises a sep­arate nation for this minority, It was in fact Communist management that engineered a Kurdish State in northwest Persia in 1945(pg 56

 

The year 1945-1946 was a fateful one for Persia. There was a Russian-sponsored Kurdish Republic at Mahabad, and another Russian-sponsored government at Tabriz, headed by Jafar Pishevari, both of which I have already described. After the Russian Army withdrew from Persia, Europe and America lost interest in the country; its problems seemed solved. But Russia, wise in political strategy, knew that when the interest of the West lagged, it was an opportune time for her to become active. That was an easy formula for Russia to apply to Persia, isolated from the West, lying inland a great distance from the Mediterranean, and pressed close to the southern border of Russia. A nation in a position so remote from friends is susceptible to influence from a more powerful and hostile neighbor. So when Persia ceased to be headline interest in America, she was swept closer to Soviet influence.(pg 134)

 

 

 

On the Qajars that Asgharzadeh praises several times, Douglas states:”In the eighteenth Century disaster Struck Persia, a disaster that has heen a crippling force even to this day. At that time an alien Turkish tribe, who could not speak the language, seized control of the country and ruled for two Centimes. They established the Kajar dynasty, which laid a curse on the land. They ruled and exploited the people; but they did not govern. Seeing the opportunity for profit in Persia’s feudal system, they murdered and dispossessed the feudal lords and sold their offices to the highest bidder. The purchasers in turn sold the subordinate positions under them. Sometimes a syndicate would purchase a provincial government and sell at auction to the highest bidder every office way down to the village chief. Thus government became a ferocious, devouring force. It lived on the people, It squeezed every copper possible from them. The feudalism that had been the strength of Persia became the means for bleeding it white.

Justice was for sale. Power was used to exact blackmail. The army and the police were weakened and corrupted. Decay took hold in the moral fiber. The religious ideals that had supplied the generating force behind Persia's great dynasties were discarded.

 

Not all of the country was despoiled. The Kajar dynasty reached as far into the hinterland as it could, both the fastness of the mountains held treasures it could not reach. These treasures were the main tribes: the Kords, the Lurs, the Bakhtiaris, and the Ghashghais. They remained independent and largely untouched. Their power infiact grew under the Kajars for peasants flocked to their dependencies for shelter from the long oppressive hand of the central government.  For the most part these four tribes (with unimportant exceptions) flourished in their ancient and accustomed manner until Reza Shah Pahlavi, father of the present Shah-—-an army officer—seized power in 1925. He undertook to break their feudal System and to settle them in permanent village.“ (pg 54)

 

 

Finally, we note that to count on Douglass as a source on Ferqeh is really unscholarly given that much further analysis and eyewitness accounts have come to light since 1951.  Thus we look at the statement of Asgharzadeh with regards to Swietchowski.  Asgharzadeh writes:

And finally, in the words of Swietochowski (1995), under the democratic government, "Azerbaijan had achieved more in one year than it had during

the twenty years of the Pahlavi regime" (p. 149).””

 

In actuality that is not the direct word of Swietchowski.  What Swietchowski says is: “For all the reservations, apprehensions, and suspicisions of the ultimate Soviet goals, the Democrats’ promise of change met with some hope and goodwill among the population.  The general perception, shared even by opponents of the DPAz, was that in terms of physical improvement- paving roads, building schools, and opening hosptials – Azerbaijan had acheieved more in one year than it had during the first twenty years of the Pahlavi regime.”

 

What is important to note is that the USSR was a much larger and advanced country than Iran.  As shown in the Soviet Documents with intrsuctions on creating the DPAz, necessary financial planning and investments were being made in order to transform Azerbaijan as much as possible.  At the same time, the analysis of Swietchowski is in direct contradiction with Asgharzadeh/Beraheni and other pan-Turkists. 

 

 

Swietchowski notes:

As it turned out, the Soviets had to recognize that their ideas on Iran were premature. The issue of Iranian Azerbaijan became one of the opening skirmishes of the Cold War, and, largely under the Western powers' pressure, Soviet forces withdrew in 1946. The autonomous republic collapsed soon afterward, and the members of the Democratic Party took refuge in the Soviet Union, fleeing Iranian revenge.. In Tabriz, the crowds that had just recently applauded the autonomous republic were now greeting the returning Iranian troops, and Azerbaijani students publicly burned their native-language textbooks. The mass of the population was obviously not ready even for a regional self-government so long as it smacked of separatism.  (Swietochowski, Tadeusz 1989. "Islam and the Growth of National Identity in Soviet Azerbaijan", Kappeler, Andreas, Gerhard Simon, Georg Brunner eds. Muslim Communities Reemerge: Historical Perspective on Nationality, Politics, and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 46-60.)

 

Thus despite the policy of land distribution, which made Pishevari popular initially amongst peasants, his government collapsed due to the fact that it was not an internal movement but a USSR movement to detach Iranian Azerbaijan.  It should be noted that the white revolution of the late Shah was also based on land reform and redistribution of lands from fuedal lords to farmers.  This movement of the Shah was opposed by the religious authorities and considerably weakened his power.  We also note that unlike what Reza Beraheni claims, the book burning that occurred during the post-Pishevari had no ethnic nature.  The Shah’s regime saw the new textbooks as anti-Iran and those books as anti-Iran and communist oriented.  It was not due to its language or else they would also have not published the Heydar Baba of Shahryar.  But let us go back to issue of Ferqeh.  The Ferqeh with its forceful reform was initially popular, but as Swietchowoski notes, popular discontent was slowly building.

 

Swietchowski notes:

“The Autonomous Regime in the Face of Popular Discontent

 

The Tabriz government savored its successful negotiations and looked with confidence

at the prospects for the Iranian Left, as it had Soviet backing and felt little incentive to heed the mounting disaffec­tion among the population.  The cultural revolution, for all its achieve­ments, fell short of stemming the tide, and hostile dispositions gradu­ally spread beyond what had been the initial nucleus of the opposi­tion—the landowning class and wealthy merchants. In the towns, the clergy became antagonized by the anti-Islamic tenor of the Democrats' propaganda. In harmony with this forceful secularism was the barely disguised anti-Iranian disposition of the regime. At the same time, manifestations of subservience to the Soviet Union became increasing­ly obsequious. "The people realized bitterly that . . . [the Democrats] were prepared to sell their country to Moscow—and to sell it cheaply at that," noted a diplomatic report, "for, in spite of past discourage­ment, oppression and disillusionment, the Azerbaijani remained a fer­vent patriot, first Azerbaijani and second Persian." '

 

In the countryside, where religious fervor and the sense of iden­tification with Iran were less in evidence, other factors produced dis­content among the peasants, who initially had been the Democrats' most solid supporters. In the spring, the regime ordered the conscrip­tion of young men from country villages for security assignments against the hostile Zulfiqari and Arasbaran tribes.  As a result, vital labor was lost at a crucial time, and many rural families were fre­quently reduced to starvation, while the young men got paid next to nothing for their guard duties.  In addition, there was the grain collection program, which met with popular resistance. Later, as the extent of the summer 1946 crop failure became obvious, the authorities ordered the peasants to cede all but one ton of their entire share. Meanwhile, shipments of grain to the Soviet Union continued, and the party leaders were believed to be enriching themselves.18 When the central government launched its counter offensive, the Tabriz regime, its popular support eroded, was taken off guard.”( Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. New York: Columbia. University Press, 1995. pg 154)

 

Indeed Swietochowski’s analysis is confirmed by many others.  The best proof of this analysis is the fact that unlike the Kurdish republic, the republic of Pishevari fell in one day.  Swietchowski notes on the final days of the Soviet puppet regime:

“The Democrat leaders repeatedly addressed public meetings to whip up support for the resistance, but their efforts produced no visible effects.  Yet when the Party began to distribute rifles and ammunition to anone willing to for “the defense of freedom,” the population eagerly seized them, with the intention of settling scores against the Democrats once circumstances allowed.” ( Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. New York: Columbia. University Press, 1995. pg 160)

According to Professor. Gary R. Hess:” On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Inded the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred dominination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective.”( Gary. R. Hess Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 1 (March., 1974))

It is worthwhile in reading the analysis of how the Russians tried to remove Iranian influence from the area.  In the book Russia and her Colonies, Walter Kolarz exposes the USSR’s anti-Iranian schemes and support of irredentist policy vis-à-vis Iranian Azerbaijan:

 

“Whilst trying to link Azerbaidzhani culture as closely as possible with Russian culture, the Soviet regime is equally eager to deny the existence of close cultural ties between Azerbaidzhan and Persia. The fact that most of the great poets brought forth by Azerbaidzhan in the past wrote mainly in Persian does not discourage the Soviet theoreticians, who are working out the ideological basis of Soviet nationalities policy. They declare categorically that everything produced by poets born in Azer­baidzhan 'belongs to the Azerbaidzhani people,' notwithstanding the language in which the works of the so-called Azerbaidzhani poets were written.(46) According to this theory the Persians have no right to claim any of the outstanding poets who had written in the Persian language; if, nevertheless, they do advance such a claim they are immediately branded as guilty of 'pan-Iranianism'.

 

The attempt to 'annex' an important part of Persian literature and to transform it into 'Azerbaidzhani literature' can be best exemplified by the way in which the memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141-1203) is exploited in the Soviet Union. The Soviet regime does not pay tribute to Nizami as a great representative of world literature, but is mainly interested in him as a 'poet of the Soviet Union', which he is considered to be because he was born in Gandzha in the territory of the

present Azerbaidzhani Soviet Republic. The Soviet regime proclaims its ownership over Nizami also by 'interpreting' his works in accordance with the general pattern of Soviet ideology. Thus the leading Soviet journal Bolshevik stressed that Nizami's 'great merit' consisted in having undermined Islam by 'opposing the theological teaching of the un­changeable character of the world'.(47)

 

Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter. In a talk with the Ukranian writer, Mikola Bazhan, Stalin referred to Nizami as 'the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaidzhani people' who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian (Note by the writer of this response: It should be noted that not a single verse of Turkish was ever written by Nizami and his mother was Kurdish and he was raised up by his Kurdish uncle and his father was also Iranic, probably Kurdish). Stalin even quoted to Bazhan a passage from Nizami where the poet said that he was forced to use the Persian language because he was not allowed to talk to the people in their native tongue(Note by the writer of this response: It should be noted that pan-Turkists do not understand even the basics of history.  Shirvanshah’s were not Turkic speaking and Nizami wrote his introduction after completing the story of the Layli and Majnoon.  The verse in question has to do with Ferdowsi and Mahmud, and Nizami through the mouth of Shirvanshah’s versifies that we are not unfaithfull like Turks, so we need eloquent speech not low speech.  This issue has been expanded upon in detail by the Azerbaijani Iranian writer Abbas Zarin Khoi and does not concern this article).(48)

 

Thus in Stalin's view Nizami is but a victim of Persian centralism, and of a denationalization policy directed against the ancestors of the Azer­baidzhani Turks. Nizami is not a Persian poet, but a historical witness of Persian oppression of 'national minorities'. It is by no means sur­prising that Stalin should take this line or that he should attach the greatest importance to everything that would undermine Persia's cul­tural and political prestige. Stalin's interest in Persia is that of a Georg­ian rather than that of a Russian. In spite of being, as we have seen, a bad Georgian nationalist in many other respects, he is animated as far as Persia is concerned by a traditional Georgian animosity against the 'hereditary enemy'. To gain economic and political influence in Persia is traditional Russian policy ever since Peter the Great, but the Soviet Government, thanks to Stalin's influence, has done more than follow in the footsteps of Czarist diplomacy. It has put into effect new methods to disintegrate Persia, methods which only a Caucasian neighbour of the Persians and an expert on nationality problems could design.

 

THE OTHER AZERBAIDZHAN

 

Even before the Second World War the Soviet authorities of Moscow and Baku knew that autonomist and separatist movements would emerge one day in Persia, particularly among the Turks of Persian Azerbaidzhan. It was felt however that some time might elapse before conditions would be ripe for launching a 'national liberation' campaign in Persia. The organ of the Soviet of Nationalities, Revolyutsiya i Natsionalnosti, stated as late as 1930 that the Azerbaidzhani Turks of Persia never ceased to consider themselves as an integral part of the Pahlevi monarchy and continued to supply both leaders and pioneers for the Persian national movement. However, the same article forecast that the growth of Turkic culture in Soviet Azerbaidzhan and the attraction

of the Baku oilfields would play their part in awakening the Turkic national consciousness of the people of Persian Azerbaidzhan.(49)

The 'awakening' of the Azerbaidzhani Turks came earlier than the Soviet sociologists could have foreseen in 1930, and was a direct conse­quence of the Russian military occupation of Northern Persia of 1941-46. During this occupation the Persian Azerbaidzhani were brought into close contact with the people of the Azerbaidzhani Soviet Republic, and it is small wonder that the idea of a union took shape in the two Azer-baidzhans, which, though widely differing economically and politically, are united by the bond of a common language. With the assistance of the 'brothers from the North' this Turkic language - ignored under Persian rule - was given the first place in education and administration all over Persian Azerbaidzhan. An Azerbaidzhani university and an Azerbaidzhani National Museum were opened, Azerbaidzhani books and newspapers were either printed on the spot or imported from Soviet Azerbaidzhan. While contact between Tabriz, the capital of Persian Azerbaidzhan, and Teheran was practically cut off, the most advanced Turkic nationalists were encouraged to look to Baku for political and cultural inspiration. Left-wing Azerbaidzhani poets praised Baku with oriental hyperbole. One of them, Tavrieli, described Baku as the 'Rose of beauty graved in stone' and another, Muhammed Biriya, poet and also secretary of the trade unions of Persian Azerbaidzhan, said he came to Baku to drink the 'life-giving water' of this city and that he wept 'happy tears' on seeing Baku.(50)

In 1946, when the Soviet troops left Northern Persia, the Persian Government only too easily swept away the regime set up by pro-com­munist Azerbaidzhani autonomists in Tabriz. The nationalism of the Azerbaidzhani Turks of Persia was still too feeble to put up a successful resistance even to a weak Persian State. The end of the Azerbaidzhani separatist government was, however, not the end of the Azerbaidzhan problem. The Soviet regime did its best to keep the issue alive both in Soviet 'Northern Azerbaidzhan' and in Persian 'Southern Azerbaid­zhan'. Soviet Azerbaidzhani poets and writers continued to deal in their works with the problem of the unredeemed brothers in the South and thus to foster an irredentist ideology among the people of the Azer­baidzhani S.S.R. On the other hand communist refugees from Southern Azerbaidzhan were given shelter in Baku and were assisted in their efforts to keep in touch with the Turkic-speaking people of Northern Persia.( Russia and her Colonies. Walter Kolarz. London: George Philip. I952.)

 

Professor Vartan Gregorian, a well known Armenian-Iranian (Note: Armenians like Persians, Kurds, Greeks are hated by pan-Turkists and this can be seen in magazines Asgharzadeh writes for including the Baku Sun) who lived in Tabriz at this time also notes:

“When the Soviet Union withdrew its armed forces from Iran in 1946, precipitating the fall of the Azerbaijan and Kurdistan autonomous “republics,” the Iranian army remained in the outskirts of Tabriz for several days.  Retributions were meted out by organized groups and scores were settled against former officials of the autonomous republics”. (Vartan Gregorian, “The Road to Home”, Simon & Schuster, June 2003, pg 23)

Furthermore he notes that during the USSR era:”For the first time, Russian was introduced as a second language and the instruction of Persian was deemphasized.” (Vartan Gregorian, “The Road to Home”, Simon & Schuster, June 2003, pg 25)

 

 

Thus it is clear that the people turned against the Stalin-Baghirov-Pishevari regime.  Had it not been so, its collapse would not have been so spectacularly quick and swift.   That is why Asgharzadeh has to make up a lie like this in order o explain to himself the embarrassing collapse of Ferqeh.  The lie Asgharzadeh makes up are amazing.  After seeing the total fleeing of Ferqeh member before even the entrace of the Iranian Army, Asgharzadeh claims:

“Eyewitness and unofficial Azerbaijani sources have estimated the number of people killed in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan during the occupation to be over 50,  000”

 

The first problem with this unsourced statement is that it is unsourced.  The second problem is that there were many Azerbaijani eyewitnesses and so Asgharzadeh is trying to falsify the term “Azerbaijani sources” in order to make other sources “non-Azerbaijani sources”.  A native of Tabriz, whose uncle was eyewitness responds to a pan-Turkist agigator like Asgharzadeh.  He writes:

 

<<قوای تهران که به بهانه نظارت بر انتخابات روانه آذربایجان شده بود در قالب ارتشی تجاوزگر در 21 آذر 1325 موجب سقوط حکومت ملي  آذربایجان شد که بر اساس آمار ارتش 25000 اعدام و 70000 مهاجر و آواره و زخمی بر جای گذاشت.>>

دائی من که هنوز در قید حیات هستند به عنوان کسی که در جبهه توده ای ها و شاید هم فرقه چی های تبریز بوده و هنوز هم پشیمان نشده که شاید واقعیت را وارونه سازد، کاملا ضد این حرف را میگوید ! کل خشونت از طرف مردم عوام پیش آمد (ایشان حتی خانواده هایی را که دست به خشونت بر ضد فرقه چی ها زدند را هم نام میبرند!) ارتش ایران تنها مدتی در قافلانکوه درنگ کرد - شاید برای اینکه درگیری پیدا نکند – و تاخیر منجر به حمله مردم بر ضد فرقه چی ها شد. بعد از ورود ارتش حتی بعضی از مقامات به اصطلاح دولت محلی ابقا شدند (مثلا دکتر جاوید) و بر عکس دائی من از بد نامی و خشونت افرادی از قبیل غلام یحیی شکایت داشتند که آدم شقه میکرد و دست و پای ژاندارمها را اره کرده بود و مثلا وزیر جنگ فرقه بود. بیسوادی غلام یحیی هنوزهم معروف است.

 

The pan-Turkists claims (falsely like all pan-Turkists agigators) that the Iranian army shows they killed 25000!  The native Azerbaijani whose uncle was in Tabriz writes that such a false figure is not reported by his uncle who was eye-witness.  His uncle explicitly says that people went after Ferqeh and had a bad feelings towards Ferqeh since Gholam Yahya (the head of Ferqeh) would cut people in half and woud saw of the hands and feet of Iranian army members and the opposition to Ferqeh. 

 

Swietchowski notes:

“As it turned out, the Soviets had to recognize that their ideas on Iran were premature. The issue of Iranian Azerbaijan became one of the opening skirmishes of the Cold War, and, largely under the Western powers' pressure, Soviet forces withdrew in 1946. The autonomous republic collapsed soon afterward, and the members of the Democratic Party took refuge in the Soviet Union, fleeing Iranian revenge.. In Tabriz, the crowds that had just recently applauded the autonomous republic were now greeting the returning Iranian troops, and Azerbaijani students publicly burned their native-language textbooks. The mass of the population was obviously not ready even for a regional self-government so long as it smacked of separatism”.  (Swietochowski, Tadeusz 1989. "Islam and the Growth of National Identity in Soviet Azerbaijan", Kappeler, Andreas, Gerhard Simon, Georg Brunner eds. Muslim Communities Reemerge: Historical Perspective on Nationality, Politics, and Opposition in the Former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 46-60.)

 

Swietchowski (again a pro-Azerbaijani republic source) also notes:

“Addressing the troops entering Azerbaijan, General ‘Ali Razmara proclaimed that they were restoing the soul of Iran to the nation, and henceforth the anniversary of the event would be celebrated by a military parade.  By all accounts the population’s enthusiatic welcome of the Iranian army was genuine.  Among the elated throngs were many who barely a year ago had also enthusiastically greeted the rise of the Pishevari government; the change of heart was due not only to disenchantment with the Democrats but also the uncontrollable violence being meted out at the sympathizers of the faller regime.  Rossow conservatively estimated 500 killed during the lawless interregnum that preceded the coming of the Iranian troops.  Hundreds of others were tried and jailed, and scores were hanged. ”( Tadeusz Swietochowski, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. New York: Columbia. University Press, 1995. pg 154)

 

According to Professor. Gary R. Hess:” On December 11, an Iranian force entered Tabriz and the Peeshavari government quickly collapsed. Inded the Iranians were enthusiastically welcomed by the people of Azerbaijan, who strongly preferred dominination by Tehran rather than Moscow. The Soviet willingness to forego its influence in (Iranian) Azerbaijan probably resulted from several factors, including the realization that the sentiment for autonomy had been exaggerated and that oil concessions remained the more desirable long-term Soviet Objective.”( Gary. R. Hess Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 1 (March., 1974))

 

Finally, Dr. Touraj Atabaki cites the following in his book.

 

“A British source cited by the US Embassy in Tehran gives the number of killed Democrats as 421.  The American Embass’s report has been classified under wash. Nat. Arch. 891.00/1-1547, 15 January 1947”( Touraj Atabaki, Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and the Struggle for Power in Iran, [Revised Edition of Azerbaijan, Ethnicity and Autonomy in the Twentieth-Century Iran] (London: I.B.Tauris, 2000. pg 227).

 

It should be noted that armed conflicts between political factions is nothing new, but the collapse of Ferqeh was quick and swift and except for some members of Ferqeh and the Iranian army (it should be noted that Ferqeh killed members of Iranian army before they took power and also they were an armed separatist group), there was hardly any bloodshed of the magnitude that pan-Turkist agitators like Asgharzadeh claim and the above scholarly sources state this fact explicitly.  Of course if pan-Turkists bend demographics statistics, make up false lies and attribute it to UNESO and make the history of Turkic language 6000 years in Iran, then any other forgery by pan-Turkist agitators is possible.

 

 

Pan-Turkists, Ferqeh and Kurds

 

Despite what Asgharzadeh tries to convey, pan-Turkists movements and even the Ferqeh have had a very teneous and poor relationship with Kurds.  Given the fact that the ideology of pan-Turkism is against Armenians, Iranians in general and Kurds/Persians/Talysh in particular, Russians, Greeks and many other people then naturally pan-Turkist political movements will have poor relationship with these groups.

 

Jalal Talebani, who is the most prominent Kurdish leader (and much more notable than one or two unknown Iranian leftists) has explicitly confirmed:

 

Jalal Talabani who is the most prominent Kurdish leader (and much more notable than one or two unknown Iranian leftists) and leader of the Iraqi Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), in a 1998 interview, contrasted the situation in Iran with that of Turkey, with respect to Kurds:

“Iran never tried to obliterate the Kurd’s identity.  There is a province in Iran called Kordestan province.  The Iranians name their planes after the province in Iran[Including Kurdistan]”( Interview in the Jordanian newspaper al-Ahram al-Yawm (amman), December 1, 1998, BBC ME/3398 MED/17.  Also cited by Daniel L. Byman, “Iran's Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary Era”, Rand Corporation, 2001)

 

A nationalist Kurd on the Rojbash Kurdistan forum states:

http://northerniraq.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=32100

 

“PJAK was created for the sole purpose of fighting the regime in Iran... It IS a branch of the PKK in a way - but at the same time, it does have a separate administration although retaining strong links to both the ideology of the PKK and the leadership of the PKK...


Personally, I don't think PJAK has contributed to improving the situation for Kurds in East Kurdistan. And I don't think it will either... There are already two Kurdish parties in East Kurdistan, which are KDPI (now divided in two new groups) and the Komele - which both have long history of advocating Kurdish rights and freedom of speech/culture/policy etc...

These two parties demand that Iran be transformed into a federal state system - which would mean they do not advocate Kurdish independence from Iran, just local administration and freedom of cultural and political rights...

I do not support military operations when there is no need for them... They should be preserved for emergenies only... When Kurdish culture is banned, when Kurdish language is banned and if the state/regime has other such extreme policies... But in Iranian Kurdistan, Kurds freely speak their language and practice their culture - and are respected for their identity, although most Iranians disagree with Kurds separating from Iran - which anyway is not the wish of all the Kurds of Iranian Kurdistan - so federalism would be the best solution either way...

PJAK in my oppinion, is there to spread APO-ideology... That's all... I don't think the leadership has pure nor noble intentions - because those are already covered by the KDPI and Komele - which both have strong political support against the current regime and the political structure of Iran (centralized government). Even many Persians and Azeris and other Iranians support these two parties because of their long standing struggle and good reputations - as well as history of being champions of democracy, rather than dictatorship and ideologies which are incompatible with the culture of the region...”

 

On the other hand, the pan-Turkists in the republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey not only have also assimilated and wiped out large numbers of Kurds, but their sympathizes like Alireza Nazmi Asfshar and others make claims on large part of Kurdish territory.  It is worth reviewing the history of Red Kurdistan.

According to Thomas de Waal:

Smaller indigenous Caucasian nationalities, such as Kurds, also complained of assimilation. In the 1920s, Azerbaijan's Kurds had had their own region, known as Red Kurdistan, to the west of Nagorny Karabakh; in 1930, it was abolished and most Kurds were progressively recategorized as "Azerbaijani." A Kurdish leader estimates that there are currently as many as 200,000 Kurds in Azerbaijan, but official statistics record only about 12,000.

…

Although there are no discriminatory policies against them on the personal level, the Lezghins campaign for national-cultural autonomy is vehemently rejected by the Azerbaijani authorities. Daghestani Lezghins fear that the continued existence of their ethnic kin in Azerbaijan as a distinct community is threatened by what they consider Turkic nationalistic policies of forceful assimilation. Inter-ethnic tensions between Lezghins and Azeris spilled over from Azerbaijan to Daghestan also. They started in 1992 when the Popular Front came to power in Azerbaijan, but reached a peak in mid-1994, the time of heavy losses on the Karabakh front. In May that year violent clashes occurred in Derbent (Daghestan), and in June in the Gussary region of Azerbaijan.

 (Thomas de Waal. Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War. , New York: New York University Press, 2003)

 

 

Professor Touraj Atabaki also talks about the problems of the two movements with each other:

The Kurdish Challenge

“Almost simultaneously with the activities of the Azerbaijani Democrats, the Iranian Kurds launched their own campaign for estabilishing autonomous stae in Iranian Kurdistan.  In view of the deeply rooted tribal nature of society in the region, the campaign for autonomy in Iranian Kurdistan was based more on ethno-tribal loyalties than a purely ethnic identity as in Azerbaijan.  Consequently, the somewhat tribal nature of the Kurdish movement, if anything, added to the already aggravated relations between the Kurds and Azerbaijanis.

Azerbaijan and Kurdistan being neighboring provinces, there had occasionally been some incidents of ethnic conflict between the two peoples, especially around the problem of landownership in regions where two communities lived side by side.  Likewise, in the past, the religious differences between the two communities, the Azerbaijanis being Shi’ites, and the Kurds Sunni Muslims, had contributed towards exacberating these conflict.  Following the formation of the Democrat party of Kurdistan on “12 August 1945, the Kurdish democrats went on to publish a manifesto which contained seven articles.  Article 6, it is interesting note, states that:

The Democrat Party of Kurdistan will make efforts to establish complete fraternity with the people of Azerbaijan and the minorities living there.

The first official step the Kurdish Democrats took to display their "fraternity" with their Azerbaijani fellow Democrats was to send a Kurdish delegate to be present at a ceremony which was held in Tabriz on 3 September 1945, to celebrate the "merger" of the Tudeh Party with the ADF. Likewise, on the very same date a separate delegation was sent to Tabriz to attend the official opening of the National Assembly of Azerbaijan. However, to their great disappointment the Kurdish delegates found that they were regarded as deputies represen­ting a district within the province of Azerbaijan, rather than a delegation from a friendly neighboring province.7* Upon their return to Mahabad, the Kurdish Democrats, being discontent with the actions of the Azerbaijani Democrats, launched a new, vigorous campaign to set up their own Kurdish autonomous government. On 22 January 1946, the Kurdish autonomous government was officially established.

Moreover, relations between the autonomous government of Azerbaijan and the autonomous regime in Kurdistan, which paradoxical­ly called itself the Republic of Kurdistan, were not to remain fraternal for long.  Both parties laid claim to areas with mixed populations to the west and south-west of Lake Urumiyeh. By mid-February 1946, tension between the two neighbouring provinces was close to breaking-point and it was feared that an armed conflict would take place." However, thanks to Soviet mediation both sides agreed to lay down their arms and seek a peaceful solution to their problems through negotiation.

 

On 23 April 1946, after a series of negotiations, a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance was signed by high-ranking representatives of "the National Governments of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan". According to the terms of this rather vague agreement, which had obviously been signed under pressure from the Soviets, both sides, having declared their "willingness to co-operate in seeking peace and prosperity in the region", acknowledged that there were minority groups of Azerbaijanis in Kurdistan and groups of Kurds in Azerbaijan. The treaty called on both regimes to consider the areas with minority enclaves as self-ruling.  However, the most important aspect of the treaty did not concern relations between Kurds and Azerbaijanis but both parties’ relations with the central government.  Out of fear that Qavam would adopt a policy of “divide and rule”, the treaty of Friendship and lliance called for both autonomous governments to form a joint delegation to undertake future negotiations with Tehran.”( Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in the Twentieth-Century Iran (London, IB Tauris, 1993). Pg 152-154)

 

 

On the other hand, the Russians deeply resented the Kurdish administration's refusal to be absorbed into the larger Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.  Baghirov and Pishevari opposed the declaration of a separate independent Kurdish republic and wanted to absorb this entity into their own separate Azerbaijan.  Pan-Turkists today to consider many Iranic speaking lands to be part of separate Azerbaijan.

 

http://www.arshiv.gamoh.info/farsi/xerite_farsi.html

The following map from pan-Turkist websites has included large portions of Kurdish speaking areas (majority of western Azerbaijan), Persian speaking areas (Hamadan, Qazvin) and Gialk/Talysh areas in a fake separatist map.

 

 

 

 

A pan-Turkist by the name D. Araz in an article titled: “socio-economic ConditionsBefore 1945 in Azerbaijan “ writes:

 

“The question now is: Which lessons can be drawn from the fall of the Autonomous Government?

After four unsuccessful revolutions in the 20th century, Azerbaijan has to realize the fact that it is impossible she can achieve her goals within so called Iran. Advocates of Federalist system are trying to fool people one more time. It is absurd to have one part of the country as an independent Azerbaijan in the north and an autonomous Azerbaijan in the south. There is not an identical example in this world.

Pisheveri's mistake must not be repeated this time. Azerbaijan has to make it crystal clear from the beginning that: First, she is not in favor of Iran's territorial integrity and second she doesn't consider Iran as a sacred entity. Azerbaijan belongs to the people of Azerbaijan and those who are sitting in Tehran has no right to make a decision for us. Therefore, the maximum preparations must be made in order to become independent and form the "UNIFIED - AZERBAIAJN" within the first decade of 21st century.

There should be no collaboration with Persian opposition groups at all and Azerbaijan shall not get involved or take side in fight that has been going on between different factions within the Persian government. Because, in the final analysis, they will all stand in her way toward independence as it was the case during one-year of autonomous government rule in Azerbaijan. Tebriz must pursue its own independent policy.

In her relations to the Kurds some points must be kept in mind:

a) The difference between the Kurds and Persians is just over religion. While Persians belong to the Sii sect of Islam, Kurds belong to the Sunni sect

b) Kurds, like Persians consider themselves as Arian

c) They don't have linguistic problem with Persians, they just speak a different dialect of Persian

d) Due to economic and social backwardness, the big Kurdish land lords still hold great power and their hatred of Turks is stronger than their hatred of Tehran. As it was the case in 1945 and 1946 they will be united with Tehran against Azerbaijan

e) They seem to guard the integrity of Iran at least for now

f) Tehran will be playing the Kurdish card against Azerbaijan, as it is doing now in Urmu and its surrounding area. Azerbaijan shall not let Tehran to turn Urmu into a second Qarabag

It can be deduced from the points above that the Kurds are not strategic allies. However, they can be tactical allies. Azerbaijan must always remind herself that as soon as Tehran moves towards even a small amount of cultural autonomy for the Kurds, they will turn their guns against her.

In dealing with Turkiye Azerbaijan shall bear in mind that the Turkish nation and Northern Azerbaijan are her natural allies. To not repeat Pisheveri's mistake any intelligence exchange must be taken place with the nationalist forces in Turkiye, not the government, until the day she gains her independence. After becoming independent both the government and people of Turkiye would support her. In fact we should announce that there will be no border between Unified Azerbaijan and Turkish Republic and Azerbaijan will not hesitate to form a confederation with Turkiye. Shah Ismayil and Yavuz Sultan Selim's mistake shall not be repeated this time.

From what has been said above nobody should come to the conclusion that our objective is to sow hatred among certain nationalities. The main purpose of this paper is to shed light to few points. As A. Shaylan said once "Even if somebody is trying to take you to the Heaven you should go with open eyes".”

Thus the Kurdish movement of the Mahabad republic did not trust the Ferqeh and did not have cordial relationship.  It should be noted that the autonomous region of Red Kurdistan created in USSR was disbaned by Azerbaijan SSR and many Kurds were forcibelly assimilated at this time.  Pan-Turkists of the area (Turkey, republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan) probably hate Armenians the most, then Kurds and then Persians.  The reason they hate Armenians and Kurds the most is due to the fact that there is a large Armenian/Kurdish ethnic barrier between Turkey and Turkic speaking areas of Iran and Iranian Azerbaijan. 

Various scholarly maps show this clearly. 

 

 

 

These maps are taken from the CIA factbook and BBC news-serivce.  Although not 100% accurate in all aspects, they are 100% accurate in making the point that there is a large Kurdish and Armenian barrier that separates the fascist dreams of pan-Turkists like Chehregani, Nazmi Afshar and many other pan-Turkists.

 

 

Nazi Germany and the Muslim World

Despite his false desire to associate Iran with anti-semitism, the fact of the matter is that Iranians never held such feelings.  It should be remembered that many Muslims countries were victims of Russian and British aggression.  Thus when they saw the rising power of Nazi Germany, natually the gravitated towards this power in order to off-set the colonial powers of Russian and England.  Despite this, Iranians were not aware of the anti-semitic feelings of Nazi Germany and when time came for actions, the Iranian embassy in Germany performed bravely.  Despite the current situation in Iran, and despite financial offerings for the Jews of Iran, the Jews of Iran are proud to stay Iranian and proclaim themselves Iranian.  This shows that Jews have had deep roots in Iranian culture.  For example the Jews of the Caucus and  Central Asia still maintain and speak the Persian dialects.  The following report highlights the embassy of Irans actions during the time of Reza Shah.

 

Iran Holocaust Show Sympathetic to Jews

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer

Sunday, September 16, 2007

(09-16) 12:00 PDT TEHRAN, Iran (AP) --

It is Iran's version of "Schindler's List," a miniseries that tells the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helps Jews escape the Holocaust — and viewers across the country are riveted.

That's surprising enough in a country where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust even took place. What's more surprising is that government media produced the series, and is airing it on state-run television.

The Holocaust is rarely mentioned in state media in Iran, school textbooks don't discuss it and Iranians have little information about it.

Yet the series titled "Zero Degree Turn" is clearly sympathetic to the Jews' plight during World War II. It shows men, women and children with yellow stars on their clothes being taken forcibly out of their homes and loaded into trucks by Nazi soldiers.

"Where are they taking them?" the horrified hero, a young Iranian diplomat who works at the Iranian Embassy in Paris, asks someone in a crowd of onlookers.

"The Fascists are taking the Jews to the concentration camps," the man says. The hero, named Habib Parsa, then begins giving Iranian passports to Jews to allow them to flee occupied France to then-Palestine.

Though the Habib character is fictional, it is based on a true story of diplomats in the Iranian Embassy in Paris in the 1940s who gave out about 500 Iranian passports for Jews to use to escape.

The show's appearance now may reflect an attempt by Iran's leadership to moderate its image as anti-Semitic and to underline a distinction that Iranian officials often make — that their conflict is with Israel, not with the Jewish people.

About 25,000 Jews live in Iran, the largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel. They have one representative in parliament, which is run mostly by Islamic clerics.

The series could not have aired without being condoned by Iran's clerical leadership. The state broadcaster is under the control of the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei, who has final say in all matters inside Iran.

Moderate conservatives have been gaining ground in Iran, where there is increasing discontent with the ruling hardliners over rising tensions with the West, a worsening economy and price hikes in basic commodities.

The government even allowed the series to break another taboo in Iran: For the first time, many actresses appear without the state-mandated Islamic dress code. The producers wanted to realistically portray 1940s Paris, and thus avoided the headscarves and head-to-foot robes that all women must normally wear on Iranian TV.

Ahmadinejad sparked widespread outrage in 2005 when he made comments casting doubt on the Holocaust and saying the state of Israel should be "wiped from the map." His government organized a conference of Holocaust deniers and skeptics from around the world in December.

But the series has won support even from hardliners. Some argue that it links the Holocaust with Israel's creation, thus boosting an argument by Ahmadinejad that if the Nazi killing of Jews did take place, the Palestinians who then lived in Palestine should not have had to pay the price for it by the creation of Israel after the war.

"The series differentiates between Jews and Zionism. The ground for forming Israel is prepared when Hitler's army puts pressure on activist Jews. In this sense, it considers Nazism parallel to Zionism," the hard-line newspaper Keyhan said.

However, if the series does aim to make that point, it has not done so overtly.

State media have said the series, which began in April, is popular. It has been a revelation for some Iranians and has pulled them away from more popular satellite channels, which are banned but which many watch anyway on illegal dishes. The fare on state TV is usually dry.

"Once, I wept when I learned through the film what a dreadful destiny the small nation had during the world war in the heart of so-called civilized Europe," said Mahboubeh Rahamati, a Tehran bank teller.

Kazem Gharibi said he watches the series every Monday on a TV in his grocery store.

"Through this film, I understood that Jews had a hard time in the war — helpless and desperate, as we were when Iraq imposed war on us," he said, referring to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

The series began with a love story between Habib, the embassy employee, and a French Jew, Sara Stroke, in the early 1940s. Viewers say the love story pulls them in as much as the history.

After Paris is occupied by the Nazis, Habib decides to forge Iranian passports for many French Jews to save them from the Holocaust — starting with Sara and her family. The German government accepts his embassy's claim that the passport holders are from an Iranian tribe and lets them leave France.

Habib is imprisoned by the Nazis for espionage after his forgeries are discovered. He then is released and returns to Tehran, where he is jailed again for forging passports.

Eight episodes remain in the series, and viewers drawn by the love story are on edge as they await the finish.

"I have watched the series from the beginning," said Sedigheh Karandish, a housewife and mother of two. "It's pulling me in to see what these two people do at the end. Hopefully, it will be a happy ending."

 

We note that at the same time, like many parties in the Muslim world, there was pro-Nazi parties in Turkey. 

 

 

IT IS AN HONOR TO BE BOYCOTTED BY THE CHP

 

Turkish Daily News, Turkey

Aug 16 2007

 

The CHP's boycott of Mr. Gul will only be a badge that he should wear

with pride. The situation is like electing a black president for the

United States, and seeing him boycotted by political figures such as

David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan leader

 

Mustafa AkyolThe expectations came true and the Justice and Development

Party (AKP) announced its candidate for the presidency: Foreign

minister Abdullah Gul, whose bid was blocked just three months ago

by the "secularism memorandum" of the Turkish military and all the

legal tricks which followed. The AKP did the right thing by taking

that decision, simply because Mr. Gul deserves the presidency and

his opponents don't deserve the luxury of freely interfering with

the democratic system by using threats and blackmail.

 

Having been announced the presidential contender, Mr. Gul moved on

to initiate dialogue with all the political parties in Parliament,

and all of them, except one, agreed to meet him. That only exception

is the Republican People's Party, the ultra-secularist CHP, whose

speaker rushed to announce that they will not talk to Mr. Gul, and

if he gets elected, they will boycott his office, for that they don't

find him secular enough.

 

In a real democracy that would be a pity, but in Turkey things are

different. Because here, the CHP represents the very anti-thesis of

democracy. And it will be simply an honor for Mr. Gul to be boycotted

by this anti-democratic and pro-oligarchic bloc.

 

You may find this claim inflated, and think that I am exaggerating

my case. But before that, let me present you with some facts.

 

Although the AKP is in existence only since 2001, and thus has been

in front of our eyes, the CHP exists since 1924, and it has a dark

history full of nasty episodes.

 

A brief history of the CHP:

 

The CHP was founded in September 1924 and in less than a year it

become the sole master of Turkish politics. But how? By winning

elections? No. By outlawing opposition. In June 1925 the CHP government

closed down the opposing Progressive Party and banned its leaders

from politics. In other words, the first achievement of the CHP was

to destroy democracy.

 

>From 1925 to 1946, it was the only legal political party in Turkey.

 

(The sole exception was the experiment with the "Free Party" of

1930, which was allowed to exist for just three months.) During this

uncontested reign, CHP leaders made many fateful decisions. One of

them was the policy to forcibly assimilate our Kurdish citizens, which

led to the banning of Kurdish language and culture - and deportation

of many Kurdish notables.

 

The CHP's ideology, which also became official doctrine, was in fact

based on Turkish racism. In 1932, in a "scientific" congress held in

Ankara under the auspices of the party, the size and features of the

"Turkish skull" was praised and Turks were proudly declared as the

seed of the Aryan race. Dr. Þevket Aziz Kansu, who was appointed by

the CHP to the presidency of the Turkish Historical Society, used

to argue that the "Turkish stock" was superior to that of the Kurd,

the Armenian and the Laz, because in Turks, the distance from the

eyebrows to the chin was shorter. This proved, according to Kansu,

that "Turks were more advanced in evolution."

 

The resemblance to the Nazi ideology was all obvious. No wonder

Recep Peker, the CHP's long-time general secretary, did not hide his

admiration for Nazi Germany's "discipline" throughout the '30s. In

those years, in each Turkish city, the head of the CHP branch was

also the governor. Like in the Soviet Union, the state and "the party"

were fully integrated.

 

In the early '40s the CHP had the privilege of establishing the first

and only Jewish labor camp in Turkish history. In the year 1942, at

a time when usurping Jewish money was the "in" thing in Europe, the

CHP government issued the infamous Wealth Tax, which was an extremely

heavy levy on non-Muslim citizens. Those that weren't able to pay it

were deported to forced labor camps in eastern Turkey in addition to

having their property confiscated.

 

When it became clear that the Allies would win World War II, the CHP

shrewdly switched sides, and did some housecleaning by cracking down

on the Turkish racist movement, which it had favored until then.

 

The CHP also unwillingly had to accept the multi-party system and

allow the founding of Democratic Party (DP) in 1946. But the election

held in that year was faked by CHP officials: Thousands of ballots

were destroyed or staged in order to ensure a CHP victory.

 

The DP came to power in 1950, created an economic boom and introduced

freedoms, and won the elections of '54 and '57. But the CHP was

secretly collaborating with a junta in the military in order to

overthrow the elected government. When the junta's thugs seized

power in 1960 and executed the DP's leader Adnan Menderes in 1961,

the CHP's leader, Ýsmet Ýnonu, was safe and sound, and getting ready

to become the next prime minister.

 

The rise and fall of social democracy:

 

The post-Ýnonu period brought an important change to the CHP,

though. Its new leader for the '70s, Bulent Ecevit, preferred social

democracy to the CHP's fascist roots and transformed the party into a

center-of-left one. That's why he had great success in the elections

of 1973 and 1977, something, which was unprecedented and which would

never happen again. After the military coup of 1980, the CHP was

closed down like all other parties, and it was reopened only in 1992.

 

The fascist and social democrat trends coexisted in the party, but

the names that represented the latter, such as Altan Oymen (who is

now in the media) or Ertuðrul Gunay (who is now in the AKP), were

gradually excluded.

 

After that, and especially since 2002, under the leadership of Deniz

Baykal, the veteran crisis maker, the CHP has reverted back to the good

old fascist days of the 1930s. In case you haven't noticed, today the

party is firmly opposed to any reform that will bring more freedom to

Turkey's Kurdish, Muslim or Christian citizens. It is very skeptical

of the EU process, and continuously fuels nationalist paranoia

about "Western imperialism" and the way it supposedly targets the

"foundations of the Turkish Republic." It is a xenophobic, illiberal,

and reactionary force.

 

Therefore the CHP's boycott of Mr. Gul will only be a badge that

he should wear with pride. The situation is like electing a black

president for the United States, and seeing him boycotted by political

figures such as David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan leader. It only confirms

that the man in the top office is the right person to be there.

 

 

Thus Irans (as well many other Muslim countries) gravitation towards Nazi Germany had nothing to do with anti-Semitic feeling but rather it had to do with the fact of British/Russian colonization.  Despite this, the Iranian embassy bravely saved many Jews from the holocaust during the time of Reza Shah.

 

Arran and Azerbaijan

 

Alireza Asgharzadeh falsely claims:

 

“Anyone familiar with the region's history and geography knows that the name Arran is mentioned in the writings of various Arab travelers and historians to indicate the name of a small town within Azerbaijan. Perhaps a most telling account of this is given by Al-Mas'udi, a tenth-century Moslem historian, who explicitly states, "al-Arran min biladi Azerbaijan," which literally means "Arran is but a town in Azerbaijan" (Al-Mas'udi, 1967, p. 78; see also Heyat, 1993, p. 6). Apparently, by rejecting the historical name of the northern Azerbaijan, Iranian extremists are trying to further isolate and marginalize the Azerbaijani community in Iran.”(pg 126)

 

The problem with Asgharzade’s statement here is three fold.  We will review some of the primary sources on Arran and Azerbaijan soon, but let us mention the three problems with the statement above.

 

The first problem is that major scholars like Diakonoff, Minorsky, Ben Fowkes and Barthold can not be grouped as Iranian extremists!  These are major scholars that pan-Turkist extremists like Asgharzadeh and Zehtabi use and distort their words!

 

Second Asgharzadeh fails to provide proper referencing to Masudi’s whole Arabic but what has been translated above contradicts Masudi’s other statements on Arran and Azerbaijan as separate areas.

 

The Persians are a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz and other Persian lands that has now been connected to these lands. All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language although the language differed slightly.  The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition.  There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (based on Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8 with the above Arabic and Persian translations).

 

Another quote by Masudi makes it clear that Aran and Azerbaijan are different:

 

«‌و پرویز [خسرو پرویز] كه پدر را خشمگین دید، فراری شده و به ولایت آذربایجان، ارمنستان، اران و بیلقان رفت.»

 

ابوالحسن علی بن حسین، مسعودی، مروج الذهب، ج 1، ترجمه ابوالقاسیم پاینده، تهران، علی فرهنگی، 1370،

Masudi says: “And Parwiz (Khusraw Parwiz) when he saw his father was angry at him, fled to the provinces of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Aran and Beylakan”

 

 

The third issue is that Asgharzadeh is not aware that there were three different Arans in the area.  Assuming that Asgharzadeh has inscribed the correct Arabic: “al-Arran min biladi Azerbaijan”.  The correct translation would be “Arran is a city of Azerbaijan” or “Aran is a city from Azerbaijan” (from here could mean adjacent).  We should remember that there are at least three Arans.  The most famous Aran is the region of Albania that lies in the caucus and roughly corresponds to the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan.


But there are two other places with the designation of Aran within Iran and one near Malatia.  With this regard we will quote Vladimir Minorsky:

“Note in the margin: “and also Aran is the name of a fortress in region of Qazvin”(Minorsky is referring to the footnote by the Ottomon historian Munjembashi who will refer to later).  Minorsky then adds: “Apart from the province of Arran, Yaqut, II, 739, III, 320, knows only an al-Ran between Maragha and Zanjan and another near Malatia”(V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian history, Cambridge University Press, 1957 ).

 

Given the fact that Masudi is clear that Aran and Azerbaijan and Armenia are different (from the other passages), he could be referring to Aran as a city.

 

 

C.E. Bosworth says about the geography of Aran/Alran:

“In pre-Islamic times, Arran formed the heart of the province of Caucasian Albania (to be distinguished of course from the Balkan Albania), which in fact embraced all eastern Transcaucasia, i.e. Arran here was a wider concept than that of post-Islamic Arran, and corresponded grosso modo with the modern Azerbaijan SSR. The Armenian term for this land was A¬vank¿ or R˜aneak¿, and the history of the region, from mythical times till the 10th century A.D., is given by the Armenian historian Movses Dasxuranci (formerly referred to as Kalankatwaci) (Armenian text ed. M. Emin, Moscow, 1860, repr. Tiflis, 1912, annotated tr. C. J. F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, London, 1961 ). The Greeks knew the people as Albanoi, and the Georgians knew them as Rani, a form taken over in an arabized form for the early Islamic geographical term al-Ran (pronounced ar-Ran).”( Encyclopedia Iranica. C. E. Bosworth. Arran)

 

Thus we will start with the pre-Islamic times.  As well known, the name Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Turkic or Altaic culture and is ultimate connected to the Persian Satrap Atropat or in the Greek form Atropates.

 

Vladimir Minorsky writes:

“ called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffa, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf).called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf).”( Minorsky, V.; Minorsky, V. "Ādharbaydjān ( Azarbāydjān ) ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online.)

 

Professor K. Shippmann states:

“In the Achaemenid period Azerbaijan was part of the satrapy of Media. When the Achaemenid empire collapsed, Atropates, the Persian satrap of Media, made himself independent in the northwest of this region in 321 B.C. Thereafter Greek and Latin writers named the territory Media Atropatene or, less frequently, Media Minor (e.g. Strabo 11.13.1; Justin 23.4.13). The Middle Persian form of the name was (early) Āturpātākān, (later) Ādurbādgān) whence the New Persian Ādarbāyjān”(Encyclopedia Iranica, "Azerbaijan: Pre-Islamic History", K. Shippmann)

 

Professor X. Planhol states:

“The name of the country is derived from that of the Achaemenian satrap of Media Atropates (Strabo 11.523) who was retained by Alexander in the government of western Media and preserved it under his successors, thus founding a principality which maintained itself in a state of independence or at least semi-independence until the second century B.C., and was only definitively reunited with the Persian empire under the Sasanian king of kings Shapur I along with Armenia (cf. Markwart, Eranshahr, pp. 111-12). From the name of this man comes the Greek forms (Atropatene, Atropatios Media [Strabo, loc. cit.], Tropatene [Ptolemy 6.2], the Armenian form Atrpatakan (Movses Xorenaci, cf. Markwart. Eranshahr, pp. 108-14), the Middle Persian form Āturpātākān (cf. Schwarz, Iran, p. 960), the New Persian forms Ād̲harbāyjān and Ād̲arbāygān”( Encyclopedia Iranica, "Azerbaijan: Geography". X.D. Planhol)

 

 

“..That the Persian Atropates would have no sympathy with this arrogation is obvious.  (On Atropates see Berve 1926:no. 180.  His Persian name was Ātarepāta(Justi), Persumably=Protector of the Fire.)  We cannot guess how long or difficult their conflict wa, but Baryaxes clearly did not succeed in wresting the Satrapy from Atropates or in rousing Median nationalism against the Persian Satrap”( Elizabeth Baynham, A. B. Bosworth. Alexandar the Great in Fact and Fiction.  Oxford University Press, 2002.  pg 92)

 

 

Thus it does not fare well for pan-Turkist anti-Iranians like Zehtabi, Asgharzadeh, Heyat and others that the name Azerbaijan is Persian and comes from a Persian Satrap.  Now we will delve into the domain of Atropatene.

 

 

Strabo in Book 11 of his geography gives us one of the earliest accounts of the region and mentions the kingdom of Atropatene:

 

“And then on the north by the Ocean as far as the mouth of the Caspian Sea; and then on the east by this same sea as far as the boundary between Albania and Armenia, where empty the rivers Cyrus and Araxes, the Araxes flowing through Armenia and the Cyrus through Iberia and Albania; and lastly, on the south by the tract of country which extends from the outlet of the Cyrus River to Colchis, which is about three thousand stadia from sea to sea, across the territory of the Albanians and the Iberians, and therefore is described as an isthmus.

...

The other part is Atropatian [[Media]], which got its name from the commander Atropates, who prevented also this country, which was a part of Greater Media, from becoming subject to the Macedonians. Furthermore, after he was proclaimed king, he organized this country into a separate state by itself, and his succession of descendants is preserved to this day, and his successors have contracted marriages with the kings of the Armenians and Syrians and, in later times, with the kings of the Parthians.

...

Their royal summer palace is situated in a plain at Gazaca, and their winter palace in a fortress called Vera, which was besieged by Antony on his expedition against the Parthians. This fortress is distant from the Araxes, which forms the boundary between Armenia and Atropene, two thousand four hundred stadia, according to Dellius, the friend of Antony, who wrote an account of Antony's expedition against the Parthians, on which he accompanied Antony and was himself a commander.”( English translation, ed. H. L. Jones (1924), Perseus Digital Library)

 

Pliny in the ''The Natural History of Pliny'' also states:

 

“Adjoining the other front of Greater Armenia, which runs down towards the Caspian Sea, we find Atropatene, which is separated from Otene, a region of Armenia, by the river Araxes; Gazae is its chief city, distant from Artaxata four hundred and fifty miles, and the same from Ecbatana in Media, to which country Atropatene belongs.”( ''The Natural History of Pliny'' by John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S, and H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A., Vol. II, published in 1890, pages 27-28)

 

According to Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world:

“Originally, Media Atropatene was the north part of greater Media. To the north, it was separated from Armenia by R. Araxes. To the east, it extended as far as the mountains along Caspian Sea, and to the west as far as Lake Urmia (ancient Matiane Limne) and mountains of present-day Kurdistan.”( Richard J. A. Talbert, Barrington atlas of the Greek and Roman world: Map-by-map Directory, Princeton University, Published 2000, Page: 1292)

 

 

Shapur I's inscription in Naqsh-e-Rostam also lists the North Western and Caucasian provinces of Sassanid Iran, amongst them Albania, Atropatene(Aturpatakan), Armenia, Iberia, Balasgan, and the gate of Alans.  Thus the caucus regions like Albania, Armenia, Iberia, Balasgan were not considered part of Aturpatakan.   Indeed Aturpatakan is counted as part of Iran in the Sassanid inscriptions where-as Albania is considered part of Aniran.

 

The famous scholar Barthold states:

«تفاوتهای قومی و نژادی میان آذربایجان و آلبانیای قفقاز حتی در دوره ی اسلام نیز برطرف نشد.  لهجه ی ایرانی مردم آذربایجان (آذری) از زبان مردم اران (ارانی) که از گزوه زبانهای یافثی است، جدا بود.  در ضمن دین مردم آذربرایجان نیز از دین مردم آلبانیا جدا بود.  مردم آذربایجان پیرو دین زرتشت بودند ولی در آلبانیا، همانند دیگر سرزمینهای مرزی ایران، آیین مسیح رواج داشت.  فرمانروایان محلی آلبانیا نیز مسیحی بودند»

(Barthold V.V., Sochineniaa, Tom II. Chast 1, Moskva, izdatelstvo Vostochnoi literarury, 1963, str. 663)

 

Translation: Racial and ethnic differences between َAzerbaijan and Albania, even after post-Islamic times persisted.  The people of Azerbaijan spoke an Iranic dialect while the people Aran spoke a yaphetic dialect called Arani and these two languages were different.  Also the religion of Azerbaijan was different than Albania.  He people of Azerbaijan were Zoroastrians, but in Albania, like the other peripheral regions in Iran, Christianity was common.  The rulers of Albania were also Christian.

 

Here is a world class scholar which even pan-Turkists distort his word who states that Azerbaijan was different than Albania.  And he confirms the well known fact that the pre-Turkic language of Azerbaijan was Iranian.  As stated the name Azerbaijan has nothing to do with Oguz tribes.

 

Thus from it’s inception, Albania and Aturpatakan(Azerbaijan) were two different lands.  In the post-Islamic period, Arran, Azerbaijan and Armenia are counted as different lands in the overwhelming majority of sources.  Among the sources that do not distinguish Arran from Armenia and Azerbaijan, the majority of sources incorporate it as part of Armenia.  If a ruler of Armenia or Azerbaijan extends his territory to Aran, sometimes his whole vast realm might have designated Aran as part of these two regions.  This is similar to the Persian Empire which controlled Egypt and hence Egypt was part of the Persian empire.

 

Here we list some of the sources from the Islamic era.

 

 

 

 

Abdullah Ibn al-Muqaffa (d. 760) a Muslim or Zoroastrian scholar and translator of Persian people background is quoted by Ibn Nadeem (d. 988) as incorporating the region of Azerbaijan into the Fahla(Kitab al-Fihrist mit Anmerkungen hrsg. von Gustav Flügel, t vols., Leipzig 1871.  Original Arabic: فأما الفهلوية فمنسوب إلى فهله اسم يقع على خمسة بلدان وهي أصفهان والري وهمدان وماه نهاوند وأذربيجان). 

He states: “And Fahlavi (Pahlavi language) pertains to the region of Fahla which is the region compromised of Esfahan, Ray, Hamadan, Mah Nahavand and Azerbaijan.”

 

Thus Azerbaijan which had an iranic language was part of the Pahlah where-as Arran which had a Caucasian language was not considered part of this region.

 

Ya’qubi gives differing accounts, but his latest work considered Aran as part of Armenia.

 

Ahmad ibn Yaqubi (d. 897) in his work ''Al-Buldan'' (The Countries) writes:(Yaqūbī, Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaqūbi, d. 897?, Les pays, tr. par Gaston Wiet. Publications de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. Textes et traductions d’auteurs orientaux ; t. 1, Le Caire, 1937).

“ And whoever wants to travel to Azerbaijan, must leave Zanjan and travel four stages to reach the city of Ardabil.  And Ardabil is the first city, among the cities of Azerbaijan, he will encounter.  From Ardabil to Barzand region in Azerbaijan is three stages.  And from Barzand to Warthan city in Azerbaijan, and from Warthan to Beylakan and from Beylakan till the city of Maragheh, which is a city in the center of upper Azerbaijan, and the cities of Azerbaijan are: Ardabil, Barzand, Varthan, Barda', Shiz, Saraat, Marand, Tabriz, Miyaneh, Urmia, Khoy and Salmas. And the people of cities and regions of Azerbaijan are a mixture of Old Ajam(Persian Muslims) Azariyya and followers of Javidan.”

 

Ya'qubi|Ahmad ibn Yaqubi (d. 897) in his work ''Al-Tarikh'' (The History) writes( Ibn-Wadhih qui dicitur al-Jaqubi historiae. Edidit indicesque adjecit M. Th. Houtsma, Leiden, E. J. Brill, l969., pg 203)

“Khazars took positions of all the cities of Armenia and they had king by the title of Khaghan.  He had a successor whose name was Yazid Balash and he ruled upon Aran, Jurzan, Basfurjan, Sisjan and this province was called the Fourth Armenia which Kobad the Iranian king had won in battle.”

 

Ahmad ibn Yaqubi quoted by the Arabian historian Abul Fida has statedL Yaqubi, Aḥmad ibn Abi Yaqubi, d. 897?, Les pays, tr. par Gaston Wiet.,Publications de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. Textes et traductions d’auteurs orientaux ; t. 1, Le Caire, 1937. pg 232)

“Armenia is divided into three parts.  The first part encompasses QaliQala, Khilat, Shimshat and the territories in between them.  The second part contains Jurzan, Tiflis and the city of Bab Al-lan. And the third part encompasses Barda which is the chief city in Aran, Bailakan and Darband.”

 

 

Al-Istakhri, in around 930 A.D. has written:

“In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.”

Original Arabic:

«و لسان اذربیجان و ارمینیه و الران الفارسیه و العربیه غیران اهل دبیل و حوالیها یتکلمون بالارمنیه، و نواحی بردعه لسانهم ارانیه»

 

Al-Muqaddasi (b. 945 A.D.) lists the cities of Arran, Azerbaijan and Armenia:

 

“Al-Ran constitutes about one third of the region. It is like an island, between the lake and the River Al-Rass. The River Al-Malik (Kura) cuts through its length. Its capital is Bardha'a, and among its towns are Tiflis, Al-Qal'a, Khunan, Shamkur, Janza, Bardij, Al-Shamakhiya, Shirwan, Bakuh, Al-Sahabaran, Bab al-Abwab, Al-Abkhan(Abkhaz), Qabala, Shakki, Malazkird, Tabla. Arminiya is an important district. Its capital is Dabil, and among its towns are Bidlis, Khilat, Arjish, Barkari, Khuy, Salamas, Urmiya, Dakharraqan, Maragha, Ahar, Marand, Sanjan, Qaliqala, Qandariya, Qal'at, Yunus, Nurin. Azarbaijan: It's capital, and it is the metropolis of the region, is Ardabil. Among its towns are: Rasba,Tabriz, Jabirwan, Khunaj, Al-Miyanj, Al-Sarat, Barwa, Warthan, Muqan,Mimadh, Barzand.”

(Al-Muqaddasi, ‘The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions’, a translation of his Ahsan at-taqasim fi Ma'rifat al-Aqalim by B.A. Collins, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, Garnet Publishing Limited,1994, pg 329-331 Original Arabic from www.alwaraq.net which has Muqaddasi online:

 

 فأما الران فإنها تكون نحو الثلث من الإقليم في مثل جزيرة بين البحيرة ونهر الرس ونهر الملك يشمقها طولاً، قصبتها برذعة ومن مدنها: تفليس، القلعة، خنان، شمكور، جنزة، يرديج، الشما خية، شروان، باكوه، الشا بران، باب الأبواب،الأبخان، قبلة، شكي، ملازكرد، تبلا. وأما أرمينية فإنها كورة جليلة رسمها أرميني بن كنظر بن يافث بن نوح ومنها ترتفع الستور والزلالي الرفيعة كثيرة الخصائص قصبتها دبيل ومن مدنها: بدليس، خلاط، أرجيش، بركري، خوي، سلماس، أرمية، داخرقان، مراغة، أهر، مرند، سنجان، قاليقلا، قندرية، قلعة يونس، نورين. وأما آذربيجان فإنها كورة اختطها اذرباذ بن بيوراسف بن الأسود بن سام بن نوح عليه السلام قصبتها وهي مصر الإقليم أردبيل بها جبل مساحته مائة وأربعون فرسخاً كله قرى ومزارع يقال أن به سبعين لساناً كثرة خيرات أردبيل منه. أكثر بيوتهم تحت الأرض ومن مدنها: رسبة، تبريز، جابروان، خونج، الميا نج، السراة، بروى، ورثان، موقان، ميمذ، برزند. فإن زعم زاعم أن بدليس من إقليم أقور واستدل بأنها كانت في ولايات بني حمدان أجيب بأنه لما ادعاها أهل الإقليمين جعلناها من هذا لانا وجدنا لها نظيراً في الاسم وهي تفليس، وأما الولايات فليست حجة في هذا الباب الا ترى أن سيف الدولة كانت له قنسرين والرقة ولم يقل أحد أن الرقة من الشام.(

 

Ibn Hawqal is another traveler who has clearly distinguished Azerbaijan, Aran and Armenia. 

 

 

 

The above map is taken from

(Ibn Hawqal, “Kitab Surat al-ard”, Beirut, Lebanon, 1992)

On the description of the map, Ibn Hawqal is clear: “The lower boundary of Arran is the Aras river”(pg 287).

 

Ibn Hawqal clearly distinguishes between Arran and Azerbaijan.

 

 

Ibn Rusta, a 9th/10th century Persian explorer and geographer traveled to region and has mentioned the names of the districts and provinces. He writes in his famous book al-A'laq Al-Nafisah:

“Iranshahr is divided amongst these regions: Khorasan, Sajestan, Kerman, Fars, Al-Ahwaz, Al-Jabal, Azerbaijan, Armaniya, Al-Mosul, Al-Jazira, Al-Sham and Surestan. ...The districts and cities of Azerbaijan are Ardabil, Marand, Bajarwan, Warthan, and Maraghah. ..The districts and cities of Armenia are Arran, Jurzan, Nashavi, Khilat, Dabil, Seraj, Soghdabil, Arjish, Sisajan, and the city of Bab al-Abwab”

(Abi Ali Ahmad ibn Umar ibn Rustah, al-A'laq Al-Nafisah, Tab'ah 1,Bayrut : Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1998, pg 96-98.)

 

Thus Ibn Rusta has clearly distinguished between Arran and Azerbaijan and considers Arran as a district of Armenia.

 

The Hudud al-Alam clearly differentiates between Adharbadhagan(Azerbaijan), Armenia and Arran.

 

“Another river, called Aras, rises on the eastern side of the Armenian mountains, from a place adjoining the Rum. Taking the eastern direction it flows on until, having skirted Vartan and followed the frontier between Adharbadhagan, Armenia, and Arran, it joins the Khazar sea.”(Hudud al-Alam ("the regions of the world"): a Persian geography, 372 A.H.-982 A.D., translated and explained by V. Minorsky; with the preface by V.V. Barthold. Karachi : Indus Publications, 1980. pg 77)

 

 

“...whence they marched on the towns of Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, destroying them and slaying most of their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant; and all this in less than a year; this is a thing whereof the like has not been heard. And when they had finished with Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, they passed on to Darband-i-Shirwan, and occupied its cities, none of which escaped save the fortress wherein was their King”

On the Tartars by Ibn al-Athir, from Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), Vol. II, pp. 427-431.

 

Zakariya ibn Muhammad Qazvini (1208/1209-1283/1284), the writer of Athar Al-Bilad wa Akhbar al-'ibad writes:

“Azerbaijan is a wide region in the middle of Aran and Qahestan.”

 

 

Yaqut Al-Hamawi (d. 1229) gives  a contradictory account.  Yaquti, a Syrian born geographer is famous for his geography bible Mu’jam al-Buldan.

He states:

“According to Hamza 'Isfahan, Pahlavi (Middle Persian) ..is the language of the district of Fahlah. And Fahlah is composed of Esfahan, Ray, Hamadan, Mah Nahavand and Azerbaijan...Arran is a Persian name and is a wide land with many cities and one of its cities is Janza which people there call Ganja. Barda' and Shamkur and Beylaghan are its other cities. Between Azerbaijan and Aran there is a river which is called Aras. The region to the North and West of this river is Aran, and whatever lies to its south is Azerbaijan.

 

Arran is a Persian name and is a wide land with many cities and one of its cities is Janza which people there call Ganja. Barda' and Shamkur and Beylaghan are its other cities. Between Azerbaijan and Aran there is a river which is called Aras. The region to the North and West of this river is Aran, and whatever lies to its south is Azerbaijan.

..Azar means fire in Pahlavi and Baykan means protector and holder. Thus the name means house of fire or protector of the fire. The boundaries of Azerbaijan is from Barda' to the east to Arzanjan to the west and to south, its boundaries are the lands of Deylam, Gilan and Tarom. And Azerbaijan is a wide and expansive land and its most famous city is Tabriz which is its center and most important city. Before that, its center was Maragheh. Among it's cities are Khoy, Salmas, Urmia, Ardabil, Marand, and others.”

Source: Shihab al-Din ibn Abd Allah Yaqut ibn Abd Allah al-Hamawi al-Rumi al-Baghdadi, Mujam al-buldan, Bayrut : Dar Ṣadir, 1984 Original Arabic under Fahlaw for the first quote: فَهْلَو: بالفتح ثم السكون ولام ويقال فهلة. قال حمزة الأصبهاني في كتاب التنبيه كان كلام الفرس قديماً يجري على خمسة ألسنة وهي الفهلوية والدرية والفارسية والخوزية والسريانية فأما الفهلوية فكان يجري بها كلام الملوك في مجالسهم وهي لغة منسوبة إلى فهلة. وهو اسم يقع على خمسة بلدان أصبهان والري وهمذان وماء نهاوند وأذربيجان، Original Arabic for the second quote: أرانُ: بالفتح وتشديد الراء وألف ونون، إسمَ أعجمي لولاية واسعة وبلاد كثيرة منها جَنزة وهي التي تسميها العامة كَنجة وبرذَعة وشَمكور وبَيلَقان وبين أذربيجان وأزان نهر يقال له الرس كلما جاورهُ من ناحية المغرب والشمال فهو من أران وما كان من جهة المشرق فهو من أذربيجان. Original Arabic for the third quote: بل أذر اسم النار بالفهلوية وبايكان معناه الحافظ والخازن فكان معناه بيت النار أو خازن النار وهذا أشبه بالحق وأحرى به لأن بيوت النار في هذه الناحية كانت كثيرة جداً، وحد أذربيجان من برزذَعة مشرقاً إلى أرزنجان مغرباً ويتصل حدها من جهة الشمال ببلاد الديلم والجيل والطرم وهو إقليم واسع ومن مشهور مدائنها تبريز وهي اليوم قصبتها وأكبر مُدُنها وكانت قصبتها قديما المراغة ومن مدنها خُوَي وسَلماس وأرمية وأردَبيل ومَرَند وغير ذلك،

The third quote contradicts the first and second quote.  But in the third quote, only cities of Iranian Azerbaijan like Tabriz, Salmas, Urmia, Ardabil and Marand are mentioned.  Taking this fact into account and the fact that Yaqut clearly distinguish Aran from Azerbaijan and Arzanjan is a land in Anatolia which is usually associated with Armenia, this third statement of Yaqut needs a more careful Azerbaijan.  Specially since Barda’ is given to the east of Azerbaijan.  Either way the second statement of Yaqut distinguishes between Aran and Azerbaijan.

 

The romantic story of Vis o Ramin clear distinguishes between Azarbayegan (Azerbaijan), Aran and Armenia:

 

 منبع: ويس و رامين با مقدمه و تصحيح و تحشيه‌ي محمد روشن، انتشارات صداي معاصر ،تهران ۱۳۸۱

 

 

جهان در دست ويس دلستان بود /

وليكن خاصش آذربايگان بود /

هميدون كشور ارّان و ارمن /

 سراسر بد به دست آن سمن‌تن /

(بخش ۱۲۴:نشستن رامين بر تخت پادشاهي، ص ۳۶۹(

 

Mohammad Roshan, Vis o Ramin, Critical edition with introduction and commentary, Seda Muasir Publishers, Tehran, 2001

 

 منبع: ويس و رامين با مقدمه و تصحيح و تحشيه‌ي محمد روشن، انتشارات صداي معاصر ،تهران ۱۳۸۱ جهان در دست ويس دلستان بود / وليكن خاصش آذربايگان بود هميدون كشور ارّان و ارمن / سراسر بد به دست آن سمن‌تن (بخش ۱۲۴:نشستن رامين بر تخت پادشاهي، ص ۳۶۹(

Ibn Athir (1163-1233) writes on the Mongol Invasion:

“...whence they marched on the towns of Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, destroying them and slaying most of their inhabitants, of whom none escaped save a small remnant; and all this in less than a year; this is a thing whereof the like has not been heard. And when they had finished with Adharbayjan and Arraniyya, they passed on to Darband-i-Shirwan, and occupied its cities, none of which escaped save the fortress wherein was their King”(On the Tartars by Ibn al-Athir, from Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), Vol. II, pp. 427-431)

Hamdullah Mustawafi is also clear that Aran is separate from Azerbaijan:

“The distances from Tabriz to the various places in Adharbayjan are as follows; to Ujan 8 leagues; to Ardabil 30; to Ushnuyah 30; to Urmiyah 24; to Ahar 14; to Pishkin 18; to Khoi 20; to Salmas 18, but going round by Maraghah it is 26 leagues; to Sarav 20; to Maraghah 20; to Dih-Khwarqan 8; to Marand 15; and lastly to Nakhchivan 24 leagues.

... The Shirvan country extends from the bank of the Kur  river to Darband of the Gate of Gates. The revenues thereof during the days of the Khans of Shirvan amounted to one million dinars of the money of our time; but at present, all that is inscribed on the registers is 113,000 dinars. Further in the matter of the military fiefs there are many of these in the divers districts. ... The Arran province is the land Between the Rivers'’ namely from the bank of the Aras to the river Kur.”

(The geographical part of the Nuzhat-al-qulub composed by Hamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwīn in 740 (1340), edited and translated by G. Le Strange and printed for the trustees of the "E. J. W. Gibb memorial.)

 

Muhammad ibn Ahmad Nasawi the author of Sirat al-Jalal al-Din has clearly distinguished Aran from Azerbaijan.

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/geography/azararan/aransanadmot2.htm

Another piece of poetry from Hakim Zojaji clearly distinguishes Aran/Armenia from Azerbaijan.

 

اران در منظومه حكيم زجّاجى

يكى از متون تازه ياب قرن هفتم هجرى منظومه اى است در تاريخ ايران و اسلام از شاعرى به نام حكيم زجّاجى كه يگانه نسخه‌اش در پاكستان شناخته شده و آقاى على پيرنيا با حوصله و همت آن را به استنساخ در آورده و در انتشارات فرهنگستان زبان و ادب به چاپ رسانيده است.
ازين منظومه درست برمى آيد كه هميشه حساب اران (آران) از نظر شناخت اقليمى و جغرافيائى از آذربايگان جدا بوده و نام سرزمين شمالى ارس   ]هرگز[ آذربايجان نبوده ]بلكه در همه متون تاريخي و جغرافيايي و ادبي اران خوانده شده] است.
اينك كه منظومه همايون نامه‌ي زجاجي دستياب شده است مواردى را كه در آن ذكر ارّان شده است درين جا به آگاهى مى رساند و خوب مشخص است كه حقيقت تاريخى چيست:

ز آران و قبچاق و روس و خزر /// فكندند بسيار بر همدگر (208)
نخست از خلافت جهانگير بود /// در آران و اربادگان مير بود (302)
بدو داد منشور ذربايگان(= آذربايجان) /// بزرگى آران و پرمايگان (562)
ورا نايبى بُد به آران زمين /// به نام آن گزين منكجو رامين
به آران درون راه عصيان گرفت /// چنان كار دشوار آسان گرفت (609)
به آران روان كن اميرى اگر /// كه دارم ز دست تو پر خون جگر (610)
ز آران و ارمن، ز مازندران /// سپاهى بر او جمع شد بيكران (893)
چو بگرفت آران وارمن به تيغ /// سر تيغشان بود بارنده ميغ (980)
به فرمان او باشد آران و روس /// در آن بوم و برزن زند بوق و كوس (1140)
روان كرد از آنجا به ذربايگان /// سپاهى به گردش ز پرمايگان
ز تبريز ناگاه مركب بتاخت /// به آران شد و كار ارمن بساخت (1160)
سپاهى از آران و ارمن زمين /// نهادند بر اسب آزار زين (1190)
از آران و ارمن، ز قبچاق و روم /// ز در بند شروان ز هر مرز و بوم (1193)
برو گنجه بستان و آران بگير /// به شمشير كن كار آران چو تير (1196)
به آران و قفچاق بيرون شدند /// كه داند كه تا آن سران چون شدند (1221)
به آران شد ازبك تهى كرد جاى /// به تبريز بُد بانويى دلرباى (1222)
قزل ارسلان شد به آران زمين /// فلك كرده در كار هر دو كمين (1254)
شود جمله آران وارمن خراب /// به دوزخ مرا باشد آن دم جواب (1326)
ز آران وارمن بيامد سياه /// به نزديك آن خسرو دين پناه (1345)
ز آران و ارمن چو شد شاه دور /// ببريد از چهره ماه نور (1346)

 

An Ilkhanid Commandment and a manuscript found near the resting place of Shaykh Safi al-Din Ardabili also distinguish Aran from Azerbaijan.

 

اران در چند سند دیگر

 ) برگرفته از مجله بخارا(

1) فرمانى اويغورى از سلطان ابوسعيد بهادر خان (7 36 - 716) در موزه ايران باستان‏نگاه‏دارى مى‏شود كه مرتبط است به امور ملكى شيخ بدرالدين ابومحمد محمود كه به همه زعماو ملكان و نواب و متصرفان گيلان، دشتاوند، گشتاسبى، اران، مغان خطاب شده است. در ميان‏نام مناطق ديده مى‏شود كه نام اران تصريحاً كنار مغان و گيلان ياد شده همچنان كه پيش ازين‏ديديم كه در غازان نامه هم مغان و اران معمولاً با هم آمده است. بنابرين « اران» نام اصلى‏منطقه‏اى است كه به آذربايجان شوروى موسوم شد و امروز استقلال دارد.

2) سندى مورخ سال 600 هجرى متعلق به بقعه شيخ صفى‏الدين را گوتفريد هرمان به چاپ‏رسانيده است كه ذكر صدارت قاضى عضدالدين بر دو ناحيه اران و آذربايجان در آن آمده است.هرمان در توضيحاتى كه بر اسناد مورد تحقيق خود مى‏آورد شش بار اران و آذربايجان را كنار هم‏نامبرده است به ملاخطه آنكه آنها دو ناحيه بوده‏اند كه نامهاى جدا از هم داشته‏اند.

در صفحه 61 كتاب هرمان آمده است: سيدالصدورى ملك الرؤسائى صدر اران وآذربايجانى حرسه الله...

كتاب هرمان Persische Urkunden des Mongolzeit,Wiesbaden, 2004 نام دارد.

3) محمدامين رسول‏زاده از رهبران مساواتى قفقاز در نامه‏اى كه به تركى از استانبول به‏تقى‏زاده نوشته (مورخ 15 مارس 1924) بنا به ترجمه‏اى كه آقاى ميرهدايت حصارى به‏خواهش من انجام داد نكته‏اى درباره اران دارد. تقى‏زاده در آن تاريخ در آلمان بوده است.رسول‏زاده به او نوشته است:

« اكنون اجازه بدهيد كه به مسئله مهمى كه با نزاكت و صميميت زياداشاره كرده بوديد، بپردازم. تلاشها و فعاليتهاى ما در تركيه و عدم حضور ما در (ناخوانا شايد: قفقاز) ايجاد شبهه و گمان كرده كه ما احتمالاً به حساب (نفع) تركيه فعاليت مى‏كنيم.نمى‏دانيد از پيدايش چنين گمانى به‏ويژه در دوستان صميمى نظير شما و على‏العموم در بين‏دوستان ايرانى ما چه اندازه متأسف مى‏باشيم.

اگر مناسبات تركيه و آذربايجان (منظورش خطّه‏اى است از قفقاز) به شكل جدّى دنبال شودحزب مساوات از جانب ايرانيان به عنوان ترك‏چى (طرفدار تركيه) و از طرف تركها به عنوان« انگليسى چى» و حتى « ايران چى» متهم مى‏گردد. اين اتهام از طرفى به مناسبت مفكوره‏جمهوريتى بود كه ما تشكيل داده بوديم و نسبت به زبان مردم استنادى ايده‏آل و موافق زمان ودموكراسى داشتيم و از سوى ديگر بر اصل عدم تكيه بر افكار جهانگيرانه مجرد و غيرقابل تطبيق‏و تكيه بر منافع حقيقى مثبت و منفى بود كه موجب سوء تأويل و در نتيجه منجر به سوءتفاهمات مى‏شود و ما سياوش‏وار مظلوم واقع مى‏گرديم.

همسايه بودن و همدين بودن با ايران و داشتن روابط اقتصادى بسيار وسيع و مشترك بودن‏ذوقهايمان و قرابت احساسمان نمى‏تواند مورد تقدير ما قرار نگيرد. به همين دليل كه فرموديداحتراز از هر نوع اظهاراتى از جانب ما كه موجب خوف و انديشه ايران باشد ضرورت پيدامى‏كند.

درين خصوص كه اتخاذ چه نوع حركتى در آذربايجان قفقازيه (يا به تعبيرى كه شما مناسب‏ديده‏ايد « اران» ) ضرورى و اصلح مى‏باشد با كمال خلوص نيت و اطمينان منتظر دريافت‏تصورات شما هستيم و از همين حال تأييد مى‏كنم كه نظريات شما نه تنها به هيچوجه مرا ملول‏نخواهد ساخت بلكه برعكس بسيار مستفيد و ممنون نيز خواهم شد و در مقابل صميميت شمابسيار شاكر خواهم بود.

بايد عرض كنم كه از سوء تفاهماتى كه در افكار عمومى ايران پيدا شده است دائماً متأثرم.جستجوى واسطه‏هايى كه بتوانند سوء تفاهمات را بر طرف كنند از اشتباهات دائمى من است ودر رأس همه قرار دارد... (ص 475 زندگى طوفانى).

نيك مشهودست كه تقى‏زاده به او تذكر داده بوده كه نام آن سوى ارس اران بوده است.

The Ottomon historian Darvish Ahmad Dede Efendi known as Munejjim Bashi writes:

Arran is a well known clime bordering in the South on Azarbayjan.  In the west its frontiers runs with Armenia, in the East and South with Azarbayjan, and in the North with the mountain qytq (*Qabq “Caucasus).  Its residential towns are---

Nashwe, which is Naqchuvan, of the 5th clime: long.  78°, lat. 42° (and some say 48°). 

Bab al-Abwabt, which in our time called Iron Gate, consists of a vast district and it possessed independent rulers: long. 78°, lat. 41°.

Ganja in the 5th clime: long. 74° lat. 48°.

Among the renowned tons of Aran are Tiflis, Shamkur, Baylaqan.

Sarir al-Lan (Alanian Sarir) consists of large district and is inhabited by the Lakz(?), whose name is also applied to a mountain.

Arminiya (and it is permissible to drop the lengith of the fourth character) is an independent clime of fertile territories.  Its frontier runs in the West with the Armenian lands; in the East and South with Aran, Azarbayjan and parts of al-Jazira; in the North, with some lands of Aran.  Mountains prevail in it.  It is divided into three parts:

(a)    Part One contains Qaliqala and Shimshat and the territories between them.

(b)   Part Two contains Jurzan and the town of Bab al-Abwab with the territories between the,

(c)    Part Three contains Barda’a and Baylaqan.

And some have divided it into four:

(a)    The first of the divisions being from Baylaqan to Sharvan, with the intervening territory;

(b)   The second being Tiflis, which is (in) Jurzan (Georgia), Bab-Firuzabad and Lakz;

(c)                            The third being Sirjan, Dabil and Nashwe(Nakhchivan)

(d)                           The fourth being the neighborhood of Hisn-Ziyad which is called Khartbet, Khilat, Azan al-Rum, with the intervening territories.

Minorsky also refers to Ibn Faqih (pg 287) and Ibn Kh(aldun?alikan?) (pg 122) for the similar four fold division of Armenia. 

 

William Jones, Esq., The history of the life of Nader Shah, King of, Prinded by J. Richardson, MDCCLXXIII (1773). Some quotes from the book: AZARBIGIAN*, or Media, ARRAN or Atropatia, and ARMENA, or Armenia, are considered by some Eastern Geographers as One Province or Kingdom, and we may, therefore, describe them together. They are bounded on the east by part of Cuhistan, and the Caspian provinces, on the west, by Rum, or the lower Asia; on the north they have Georgia and Circassia, on the south, a canton of Mesopotamia, and Curdistan, part of the ancient Assyria. The most remarkable cities of Azarbigian are; 1. ARDEBIL, considered as sacred by the Persians, for containing the tombs of Sefiaddin and Heider, the venerable ancestors of the Sefi family. 2. TABRIZ, commonly called Tauris, which, in the last century, was a large and beautiful city, but has been much impaired during the late disorders in Persia: it stands at the foot of a mountain, which the Greeks called Orontes, a word corrupted, perhaps, from Orond; and a small river winds through its streets .. The great cities of Arran and Armenia are, GANGIA, and ERIVAN, its Capital, a large but unpleasant town, without any fine edifice in it, or any other ornament than a number of gardens, and vineyards. Some Geographers, and among them the prince of Hamah, place in Armenia the cities which we consider as belonging to Georgia or Gurgistan; these are SHAMCUR, and TEFLIS, a city not large but tolerably elegant: it is washed on the eastern side by the river Ker or Cyrs, and defended on the other sides by strong and beautiful walls. .. SHIRVAN and DAGHESTAN or The country of rocks... The cities of Shirvan are, 1. BACU, a port on the Caspian lake, whence it is called the Sea of Bacu: 2. SHAMAKHI, a city well known to the Russians: and 3. DERBEND or the barrier, which stands at the foot of Mount Caucasus or Keitaf, and commands the Caspian: this place was called by the ancients Caspiæ portæ, by the Turks, Demir Capi, or, the gate of iron, and by the Arabs, Babelabwab or the important passage. It was anciently considered as the boundary of the Persian Empire, and an old king of Persia built to the north of it a vast wall, like that of China, which has been repaired at different times, in order to prevent the incursions of the Khozars, and other savage nations, who infested the rocks between the Caspian and Euxine seas.

 

According to Professor. George Bourtounian:

The use of the term "Azerbaijan" requires clarification, as well. Although Azerbaijan was a geographical entity in the eighteenth and ninetennt centuries, the term was only used to identify the province in northwestern Persia. The Safavids, at one time, for revenue purposes, included some of the lands north of the Arax River as part of the province of Azerbaijan. This practice gradually fell out of use after the fall of the Safavids. To Mirza Jamal and Mirza Adigozal Beg, as well as other eitheenth and nineteenth-century authors, Azerbaijan referred to the region located south of the Arax River.

(Source: A History of Qarabagh: An Annotated Translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-E Qarabagh by Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi and George A.

Bournoutian, Mazda Pub (November 1994))

 

Thus native Caucasians did not use the term Azerbaijan for the Caucus.

Russian Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia Dictionary, published in 1890, states the following in the article called "Azerbeijan":

“Azerbeijan, or Aderbeijan — fire land; 'Atrupatkan' in Pahlavi and 'Aderbadekan' in Armenian, is the north-westernmost province and the richest trade and industrial region of Persia. It borders Persian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam (Media) to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia (Southern Transcaucasia), from which it is separated by the Aras River, to the north, Russian province of Tashil to the east and Persian province of Gilan near the Caspian sea.”

 

((Russian) Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. "Azerbeijan". St. Petersburg, Russia, 1890-1907):

“Azerbeijan, or Aderbeijan — fire land; 'Atrupatkan' in Pahlavi and 'Aderbadekan' in Armenian, is the north-westernmost province and the richest trade and industrial region of Persia. It borders Persian Kurdistan and Iraq of Adjam (Media) to the south, Turkish Kurdistan and Armenia to the west, Russian Armenia (Southern Transcaucasia), from which it is separated by the Aras River, to the north, Russian province of Tashil to the east and Persian province of Gilan near the Caspian sea.”

The above source is important since the Russians administered the area.

The Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 under Azerbaijan writes:

“AZERBAIJAN (also spelt ADERBIJAN; the Azerbadegan of medieval writers, the Athropatakan and Atropatene of the ancients), the north-western and most important province of Persia. It is separated from Russian territory on the N. by the river Aras (Araxes), while it has the Caspian Sea, Gilan and Khamseh (Zenjan) on the E., Kurdistan on the S., and Asiatic Turkey on the W.”

 

Some maps from the era:

 

 

European Map from 1719 clearly distinguishing Armenia, Albania and Aturpatakan

 

1864 Johnson Map of Turkey, Persia & Arabia ( Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan ) (Caucasus portion) Mapmaker: A. J. Johnson Title: Johnson’s Turkey in Asia Persia Arabia & c. by Johnson & War

 

 

 

"1837 Malte-Brun Map of Persia & Arabia"

 

 

 

This Author has tried to find a map that shows above the Aras river as Azerbaijan, but has not been successful so far.  Going back to local Caucasian historians during the Qajar era, we can site two sources.  Abbas Qoli Bakhikhanov and Mirza ‘Alabedin Shirvani.

 

 

در كتاب «گلستان ارم» نوشته عباسقلي آقا باكيخانوف (مترجم ژنرال پاسكويچ و عباس ميرزا در گفتگوهاي مربوط به پيمان تركمانچاي)، كه شرح تاريخ شروان و داغستان از عهد باستان تا بسته شدن پيمان ننگين «گلستان» مي‌باشد و به سال 1257 قمري (1841 ميلادي) نوشته شده است.
موارد بسياري را از دوره‌هاي تاريخي اين سرزمين مي‌توان يافت كه نشان دهنده جدا بودن ولايات آن سوي ارس از آذربايجان مي‌باشند كه در اينجا به آوردن دو مورد كوتاه از دوره قاجار بسنده مي‌شود.
صفحه 174...‌«بعد از وفات اين اميركبير [كريم خان زند] آقامحمدخان به استرآباد رفته، يوما فيوما [روز بروز] بر مراتب حشمت و تهيه اسباب سلطنت افزود و بر زنديه غالب و به تدريج ولايات عراق و فارس و طبرستان و گيلان و آذربايجان را مسخر نمود و در سنه 1209 ق ‌(1795 م) هزار و دويست و نه به عزم تسخير قره‌باغ، پل خداآفرين را – كه ابراهيم خان قراباغي براي منع عبور لشكر ايران ويران كرده بود – تعمير و بر سر قلعه پناه‌آباد – كه شوشي گويند – آماده، در منزل توپخانه نزول و به محاصره پرداخت.»(31(
صفحه 189... «در اين اثنا نايب‌السلطنه [عباس ميرزا] از راه اصلان‌دوز و قراباغ عزيمت شيروان و جمعيت كنار [رودخانه] «كر» را كه مصطفي خان براي منع عبور لشكر ايران تعيين كرده بود، پريشان و ايلات شريان و مرادخاني و غيره را ... به مغان كوچانيده... خود را به اتفاق حسينقلي باكويي وارد حضور گشته مراجعت نمود. بعد از چندي كه مدعاي [خواسته‌ي] نايب السلطنه در شيروان به حصول نيانجاميد... پيرقلي خان را از قبه احضار و به توقيف مغان مامور داشته خود به آذربايجان مراجعت نمود.»(32(
كتاب ديگري كه به آن پرداخته مي‌شود «رياض‌السياحه» نوشته ميرزا العابدين شيرواني به سال 1237 قمري است، شيرواني كه غير از «رياض‌السياحه» كتابهاي «بستان‌السياحه» و «حدايق‌السياحه» را نيز نگاشته است، در اين كتاب به شرح ولايات ايران و ولايات كشورهاي پيرامون پرداخته و با نوشتن مرزهاي هر ولايت، مختصري نيز درباره تاريخ و فرهنگ و باورهاي مردمان و بزرگان آنها شرح داده است.
شيرواني در «رياض‌السياحه» از آذربايجان در گلزار اول، از شيروان در گلزار سوم و از اماكن موغان كه قراباغ و گنجه را نيز در تركيب آن مي‌نويسد در گلزار پنجم ياد كرده و به شرح آنها پرداخته است، كه در اينجا مختصري از هر يك آورده مي‌شود.
گلزار اول در گفتار ديار آذربايجان - «آذربايجان دياري است معروف... داراي هفده شهر آباد و بيست و نه قصبه خجسته بنياد... محدود است از طرف شمال به ولايت موغان و شيروان و جبال البرز [قفقاز] و از سمت جنوب به عراق عجم و كردستان و از جانب مشرق به ديار خلخال و گيلان و طالش و ديلم، و از جهت مغرب به بلاد ارمن و گرجستان.» شيرواني از شهرهاي آذربايجان شرهاي مراغه، تبريز، خلخال، اردبيل و خوي را ياد كرده است.(33(
گلزار سوم در بيان بقاع شيروان - «... مملكت شيروان دياريست معروف... محدود است از طرف شمال به جبال البرز [قفقاز] و ملك داغستان و از جانب جنوب به رود كر و موغان و از سمت مشرق به درياي خزر و از سمت مغرب به گرجستان، محتويست بر هفت مدينه مشهوره، ده قصبه معمور و هشت قلعه محكم و سه بندر متانت توام...»، شيرواني از شهرهاي شيروان، بنادر بادكوبه و ساليان و شهر شماخي را ياد كرده است.(34(
گلزار پنجم در تبيان اماكن موغان - «... آن ولايت محدود است از طرف شمال به شيروان و از جنوب به آذربايجان و از مشرق به طالش و درياي خزر و از مغرب به گرجستان و اران... گنجه و قراباغ و بيلقان و بردع از موغانست...» مخفي نماند كه بعضي از اصحاب تاريخ، شهر گنجه و قراباغ را از ولايت موغان محسوب نمي‌دارند و داخل بلاد اران مي‌شمارند.(35(
هر چند گزارش شيرواني از موغان و اران و ارمينيه صغري در برابرسازي با گزارشهاي پيشين جغرافيايي آشفته مي‌نمايد ولي آنچه مسلم است جدايي اين ولايت‌ها از آذربايجان است.
از نوشته‌هاي باكيخانوف و شيرواني به روشني پيداست كه هيچ يك از شهرهاي آن سوي ارس از آذربايجان نبوده‌اند.

 

31ـ باكيخانوف، عباسقلي‌آقا، گلستان ارم، به تصحيح عبدالكريم علي اوغلي علي‌زاده، نشر علم نشرياني، باكو، 1970 م، ص174
32ـ همان ص 189
33ـ شيرواني، ميرزا زين‌العابدين، رياض السياحه به تصحيح اصغر حامد رباني، انتشارات سعدي، تهران 1361ش، ص 95 – 56 – 34 – 25
34ـ همان 121 – 119 – 116
35ـ همان 139 –138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ali Abdoli has also alluded to Bakikhanov

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/geography/azararan/Azarbaijankojastaliabdoli.htm

 

 

Thus Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi, Mirza Adigozal Begh, Abbas Qoli Bakhikhanov and Mirza ‘Alabedin Shirvani who were natives of the caucus and the territories of the modern day republic of Azerbaijan do not use Azerbaijan for these territories.  Also in the Gulistan and Turkemenchay treaty, the term Azerbaijan is not used for the Caucus.

 

Finally we bring the words of four heavy-weight historians and make a conclusion.

 

Vasily Vladimirovich Bartold a top authority in the field of history and turkology states:

“Shirvan is not used that way, to encompass the territory of the now day Azerbaijan Republic.  Shirvan is "not that big" with the main city of Shemakha, cities like Ganja and others were never part of Shirvan, and whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Aran can be chosen.

But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity.  On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen.  Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, its confusing and a questions rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”(Bartold V.V., "Sochineniia", volume II, part 1, "Vostochnoi Literatury" Publishers, Moscow, 1963, p. 703).

 

 

According to Igor Diakonoff:

“Until the twentieth century, the term Azerbaijan (a late form of the term Atropatene derived from the name Atropates, satrap and later king of Western Media at the end of the fourth century BC) was used solely for the Turkic-speaking regions of North-Western Iran. When, in 1918-1920, the power in Eastern Transcaucasia (Shirvan, etc.) was taken over by the party of Musavatists, they gave to their state the name ‘Azerbaijan’, hoping to unite it with Iranian Azerbaijan, or Azerbaijan in the original sense of the term; that territory had much greater Turkic population; the Musavatists relied on the state of complete political disintegration of Iran at that period, and hoped to easily annex Iranian Azerbaijan into their state. Until the twentieth century, the ancestors of the present-day Azerbaijanis called themselves Turki, while the Russians called them Tatars, not distinguishing them from the Volga Tatars. The Azerbaijani language belongs to the Oghuz branch of Turkic; the Volga Tatar language belongs to the Kipchak branch of Turkic.”( The Paths of History – Igor M. Diakonoff, Contributor Geoffery Alan Hosking, Published in the year 1999, Cambridge University Press, pg 100)

 

According to Vladimir Minorsky:

“Historically the territory of the republic corresponds to the Albania of the classical authors (Strabo,xi, 4; Ptolemy, v, 11), or in Armenian Alvan-k, and in Arabic Arran. The part of the republic lying north of the Kur (Kura) formed the kingdom of Sharwan (later Shirwan). After the collapse of the Imperial Russian army Baku was protectively occupied by the Allies (General Dunsterville, 17 August-14 September 1918) on behalf of Russia . The Turkish troops under Nuri Pasha occupied Baku on 15 September 1918 and reorganized the former province under the name of Azarbayd̲j̲ān—as it was explained, in view of the similarity of its Turkish-speaking population with the Turkish-speaking population of the Persian province of Ādharbaydjān”( Minorsky, V.; Minorsky, V. "Ādharbaydjān ( Azarbāydjān ) ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007.)

 

According to Dr. Touraj Atabaki:

“The magazines Iranshahr (Land of Iran) and Ayandeh (The Future) were pioneers in publicizing these views. Iranshahr was first published in Berlin, in June 1922. The editor, Hoseyn Kazemzadeh, maintained close contact with intellectuals in Europe who were involved with Iranian studies and his magazine was soon exercising a powerful influence in political and intellectual circles in Iran. During the five years of lranshahr’s existence, forty-eight issues appeared and special attention was often paid to Azerbaijan. Indeed, there were nine long articles which were exclusively devoted to the subject.

 

When in 1923, the Turkish magazine Yeni Mecmu’a (The New Journal) reported on a conference concerning Azerbaijan held by Turk-Ocagi the Turkish Hearth) in Istanbul, Iranshahr (an Iranian journal edited by the Iranian Azerbaijani Hoseyn Kazemzadeh in Germany) was quick to react.  During the conference, Roshani Beg, a well-known pan-Turkist, had condemned the Iranian government for its atrocious, oppressive and tyrannical policies towards the Azerbaijanis living in Iran.  He called on all Azerbaijanis in Iran to unite with the new-born Republic of Turkey.  In reply, Iranshahr published an article by J. Marquart, the eminent German Iranist of the early twentieth century, which dealt with the historical bonds exisiting between Azerbaijan and the rest of Iran.  At the end of the article, there appeared a poem by ‘Aref, the Iranian radical Constitutionalist poet, denouncing the Turkish language. “(Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in the Twentieth-Century Iran (London, IB Tauris, 1993). Pg 55)

 

We will deal with this poem of ‘Aref in another section but as can be seen, Asgharzadeh does not consider the fact that ‘Aref’s poem was a reaction towards the pan-Turkists who wanted to annex Iranian Azerbaijan.  Thus ‘Aref can not be at fault here and the pan-Turkists who started talking about the annexation of historical Iranian territory are responsible for angering Iranian patriots).

 

The opinion of Marquat may be found here:

نظر استاد مارکورات در رابطه با نامگزاری آذربایجان بر مناطق قفقاز

 

Markwart states:

“It is imperative that the government of Iran with the support of all the Iranian nation without any discord in religion or language oppose and seriously protest the usage of the name Azerbaijan for the Caucasian Tatar republic.  In the pages of history it is more than clear that Azar-Abadegaan or Azerbaijan which the Arabs wrote آذربیجان was throughout history a place in the north within Iran up to the Aras river”

 

According Dr. Bert. G. Franger:

‘’In the case of Azerbaijan, there is another irrational assault on sober treatment of history to be witnessed: its denomination. The borders of historical Azerbaijan crossed the Araxcs to the north only in the case of the territory of Nakhichevan. Prior to 1918, even Lenkoran and Astara were perceived as belonging not to Azerbaijan proper but to Talysh, an area closely linked to the Caspian territory of Gilan. Since antiquity, Azerbaijan has been considered as the region centered around Tabriz, Ardabil, Maraghch, Orumiych and Zanjan in today's (and also in historical) Iran. The homonym republic consists of a number of political areas traditionally called Arran. Shirvan, Sheki, Ganjeh and so on. They never belonged to historical Azer­baijan, which dates back to post-Achaemcnid, Alexandrian 'Media Atropatene'. Azerbaijan gained extreme importance under (and after) the Mongol Ilkhanids of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when it was regarded as the heartland of Iran. During the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan and Tabriz still held a particularly honoured posi­tion within Iran. Linguistic considerations played no part in the tradi­tional identification of Azerbaijan until the beginning of the twentieth century. Touraj Atabaki has offered some beautiful indications concerning the arbitrary transfer of the ancient toponym Azerbaijan from the south towards the north, in his essay in this volume.

Under Soviet auspices and in accordance with Soviet nationalism, historical Azerbaijan proper was reinterpreted as 'Southern Azer­baijan', with demands for liberation and, eventually, for 're'unification with Northern (Soviet) Azerbaijan a breathtaking manipulation. No need to point to concrete Soviet political activities in this direc­tion, as in 1945-46 etc.

 

The really interesting point is that in the independent former Soviet republics this typically Soviet ideological pattern has long outlasted the Soviet Union. At present, I don't see any potentially successful political grouping in the Republic of Azerbaijan revising this theory.’’(Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London, GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)

 

 

 

Although we did not exhaust the list of all sources, the overwhelming majority of sources do not use the term Azerbaijan for the bulk of the territories of Azerbaijan republic.  The name Azerbaijan is seldom or almost never used for the territory of the Caucasian republic of Azerbaijan.  A historian, in the true and greater context examines the overwhelming majority of sources, not a small number of sources which contradict each other.  The majority of classical sources have used Aran/Albania and also Shervan, Qarabagh, Qarabagh-Aran and etc for the Caucus.  Many of the classical sources have also used the term Armenia but these are minority relative to Aran/Albania for the bulk of the territories of the republic of Azerbaijan.  Finally the term Azerbaijan, perhaps due to the same ruler, might have at sometimes came beyond Araxes, but this is mainly due to the fact that the same ruler ruled a vast area and thus the territory to outsides was known by its most famous land.  Another major issue is that the false terms “south” and “north” Azerbaijan for the territories of Iranian Azerbaijan and republic of Azerbaijan have no historical basis.  Indeed, the term Armenia/East-Armenia has more historical legitimacy for the territories of the republic of Azerbaijan since it has been used at least since the 19th century.  Most importantly, given the fact that four famous Caucasian historians do not use the term Azerbaijan during the Qajar era for the Caucus, given the fact that one can hardly find a map of the Caucus from that era that uses Azerbaijan for the Caucus and finally given the fact that some historians (all non-Iranians and not the false designation “Iranian extremists” wrongly conjectured by Asgharzadeh) have suggested the name was chosen for political reason, the issue needs dispassionate historical analysis.  Specially from the viewpoint that the name was chosen specifically to annex historical Atropatene/Aturpatakan(Azerbaijan).

 

 

Misrepresentation of Aref Qazvini and Shahryar

Asgharzadeh misrepresents Aref Qazvini’s poem on the Turkish language by failing to provide context. 

در سال 1923 مجله‌ی ترکی «ينی مجموعه» گزارشی در باره‌ی کنفرانس مربوط به آذربايجان چاپ کرد که توسط «تورک اوجاغی» در استانبول تشکيل شده بود. روشنی بيگ پان ترکيست معروف در ضمن کنفرانس مزبور، دولت ايرن را به خاطر شقاوت و روش‌های مستبدانه نسبت به آذربايجانی‌های ساکن ايران محکوم کرده و همه‌ی آذربايجانی‌ها را به اتحاد با جمهوری جديد ترکيه فرا خواند. مجله‌ی ايرانشهر در تهران به سرعت واکنش نشان داد. اين مجله در پاسخ، مقاله‌ای به قلم يوزف مارکوارت ايرانشناس معروف آلمانی راجع به روابط تاريخی موجود بين آذربايجان و بقيه‌ی ايران چاپ کرد. در پايان مقاله نيز شعری از عارف قزوینی در مذمت زبان ترکی درج شد:

زبان ترکی از برای قفا کشيدن است         

 نسيم صبح دم برخيز

صلاح پای اين زبان ز مملکت بريدن است  

  بگو به مردم تبريز

دو اسبه با زبان فارسی از ارس پريدن است   

 که نيست خلوت زرتشت

 جای صحبت چنگيز

 

According to Dr. Touraj Atabaki:

“The magazines Iranshahr (Land of Iran) and Ayandeh (The Future) were pioneers in publicizing these views. Iranshahr was first published in Berlin, in June 1922. The editor, Hoseyn Kazemzadeh, maintained close contact with intellectuals in Europe who were involved with Iranian studies and his magazine was soon exercising a powerful influence in political and intellectual circles in Iran. During the five years of lranshahr’s existence, forty-eight issues appeared and special attention was often paid to Azerbaijan. Indeed, there were nine long articles which were exclusively devoted to the subject.

 

When in 1923, the Turkish magazine Yeni Mecmu’a (The New Journal) reported on a conference concerning Azerbaijan held by Turk-Ocagi the Turkish Hearth) in Istanbul, Iranshahr (an Iranian journal edited by the Iranian Azerbaijani Hoseyn Kazemzadeh in Germany) was quick to react.  During the conference, Roshani Beg, a well-known pan-Turkist, had condemned the Iranian government for its atrocious, oppressive and tyrannical policies towards the Azerbaijanis living in Iran.  He called on all Azerbaijanis in Iran to unite with the new-born Republic of Turkey.  In reply, Iranshahr published an article by J. Marquart, the eminent German Iranist of the early twentieth century, which dealt with the historical bonds exisiting between Azerbaijan and the rest of Iran.  At the end of the article, there appeared a poem by ‘Aref, the Iranian radical Constitutionalist poet, denouncing the Turkish language. “(Azerbaijan: Ethnicity and Autonomy in the Twentieth-Century Iran (London, IB Tauris, 1993). Pg 55)

 

 

The context of the poem is clear.  The poem was published in a magazine edited by Iranian Azerbaijani (Kazemzadeh Iranshahr).  The poem was a response towards the conference of the “Tork Ocagi” in Turkey who demanded that Iranian Azerbaijan secede (because it speaks a Turkic language) and join the new republic of Turkey.  Thus Aref Qazvini’s poem is perfectably understandable in this setting, specially since it was published in a magazine whose editor was an Azerbaijan.  Thus Asgharzadeh misleads the readers by not providing correct context and by not mentioning that the poem was a reaction to the chavaunistic and fascist expansionist policy of pan-Turkism.  Something obviously Alireza Nazmi Afshar and Alireza Asgharzadeh have expressed their implicit support of. 

 

Another poet who is misrepresented by Asgharzadeh is Shahryar. 

Asgharzadeh writes:

‘’ The exclusive use of the Perso-Arabic script in Iran serves to keep the important literary/linguistic developments in the neighboring countries inaccessible to the non-Persian ethnic groups of Iran, and vice versa. They cannot read each other's literature, nor can they write to one another due to an alphabet barrier. This is a phenomenon to which the late Azerbaijani pres­ident Ebulfez Elchibey referred as the Alphabet Despotism (Elchibey, 1997; see also Dei and Asgharzadeh, 2003).’’

 

 

Here are some of the despotic statements of the heroe of pan-Turkists, Elchibey.  Statements he made during his presidency and war against Armenians.

“Iran is just as much heterogeneous empire as Russia and is thus doomed to fall apart”(Thomas Goltz, Azerbaijan Diary, M.E. Sharpe, 1998)

 

“On several occasions, he blasted Iran as a doomed state and predicted that within five years Azerbaijan would be reunited” (Cornell, Svante E. Small Nations and Great Powers : A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus . Richmond, Surrey, , GBR: Curzon Press Limited, 2000.)

Interestingly enough, while coveting 15-20% of the land of Iran, his own country lost 15-20% of its internationally recognized territory. 

 

 

But going back to the above of statement.  The amount of falsehood brought by Asgharzadeh in order to victimize himself and his co-linguists is shown by the above false sentence.  First of all the republic of Azerbaijan has changed its alphabet fourt times in the last 100 years or so.  Why should Iranian Azerbaijanis change their alphabet which is also the alphabet of the classical Azeri literature?  Also it is up to these countries like republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey to embrace the classical alphabet of their own literature.  Afterall Ataturk’s language reform and adoption of Latin alphabet  had racia/ethnic chavaunistic reasons.  Also the statement by Asgharzadeh is totally false given the fact that people in Iran use cell-phones, computers and etc. and have a decent working knowledge of the latin Alphabet. 

Before giving Shahryar’s viewpoint on Latin alphabet, we should mention the anti-Iranian statements of Elchibey.  Elchibey was such a moron that while he was in a war with neighboring Iran, he was also threatening Irans territorial integrity. 

 

Let us first look at Shahryar’s response to the latin alphabet.  Shahryar who is the greatest literary figure of the Azerbaijani Turkish literature (probably in all times since classical Azeri of Fizuli, Nasimi and etc. are incomprehensible for modern speakers of the language) considers the latin alphabet to be the alphabet of Satan.  Thus why doesn’t Asgharzadeh take issues with Shahryar.  It is obvious that by calling the latin alphabet, the alphabet of Satan, Shahryar is supporting the made-up nonsense of “alphabetic despostism” coined by the fascist grey wolf Elchibey.  The reason of course is that since Shahryar is Azeri, Asgharzadeh can not play the victim role as well if he criticizes Shahryar.  Also since when is the Perso-Arabic script used in Turkey and in the republic of Azerbaijan in order for Iran to burden itself in cutting its own root from its heritage?  Shahryar clearly criticizes the Caucasian Azeri-speakers for choosing Satan’s alphabet.

 

شهريار در اين شعر الفبای آنها را الفبای شيطان خوانده است :آييريب شيطان الفباسی سيزی آللاهدان /اوز الفباميزی يازساز تاپاسيز قرآنی

 

Also Shahryar was a poet that loved both the Azeri language and Persian language.  But more importantly, for him Iran was much more important and thus he is of the same opinion as Aref Qazvini when he proclaims:

 

ترکی ما بس عزیز است و زبان مادری

لیک اگر ایران نگوید لال باد از وی زبان

Thus he was aware of the bad intentions of pan-Turkists.  Overall, Shahryar being a devout Shi’i Muslim, and a poet who composed 90% of his poetry in Persian while also creating the best masterpieces of the Azeri language remained true to his Iranian nationality.  For him, the interest of the Iranian nation was more important than anything else as the above couplet testifies. 

 

 

استاد شهريار

حماسه ايران

به پيشگاه عزيزم آذربايجان و  جشن تخت جمشيد و يادگار جشن فردوسي

 

Afghanistan and Iraq

Asgharzadeh tries to show that Iraq and Afghanistan should become models of future Iran.  He has devoted several pages to this issue.

“In recent years, significant changes have been taking place in the neighboring countries of Afghanistan and Iraq that have real ramifications in the forma­tion and future development of an emerging political discourse in Iran. “

 

It should be noted that Iran has great relationship with both the Kurdish and Shi’i parties of Iraq where-as pan-Turkists (like Nazmi Afshar) and Turkey are bemoaning the independent entity of Iraqi Kurdistan.  Indeed pan-Turkist chavaunist t.v. station Gunaz t.v. as well as Chehregani on his official website have advocated incursion of Turkish army into Iraq.

http://www.gamoh.org/arxiv/kerkuk.html

“Türk ordusu Iraqa girmelidir”

 

Also from another perspective, in Iraq more than 1 million have died and the country is in a state of disaster.  As this article was written, the US congress was debating if it should partition Iraq or not.  Thus history and culture are the essential bonds of a nation.  A common history and the common Iranian identity which has glued Iran together is based on many factors including commonality in regional cultures, common holidays, and common history.  Also the universality of the Persian language and Islam are two other important factors that are shared by all Iranians.  To give proof, we should note Turkey has the most to fear from Kurdistan.  Or the republic of Azerbaijan, could not keep its Armenian population happy and hence the occurrence of the Karabagh war. 

 

Afghanistan is also a disaster where ethnic rivalries between various factions mean that official positions are given not based on competence but based on ethnicity.  There are serious ethnic and religious rivalries in Afghanistan and Iraq which is not comparable to Iran.  Thus the ramification for the majority of Iranians is the strengthening of the national Iranian identity.  It should be noted that a democratic system does not necessarily mean lack of separatism.  Belgium, Canada and Spain are three examples of this fact.  The case of Belgium is noteworthy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070928/cm_uc_crpbux/op_333953

 

Thus Asgharzadeh fails in his theoretical vision.  The failed models of Afghanistan and Iraq as a model for Iran are poor options.  Indeed 99% of Kurds would rather have their own state rather than be part of Iraq and this is a historically legitimate claim.  The biggest losers in such ordeal is obviously Turkey, pan-Turkism and not Iran.   Each country in the world is different.  Distorting facts, figures and history will not help in brining democracy in Iran but will lead simply to an Iraq or Karabagh war.

 

 

More example of pan-Turkist historiography

 

Here are some more example of pan-Turkist revisionism by Asgharzadeh.  Note due to his inherent racism, he is sensitive to give credit to Persian culture and language and instead falsifies history.


Now note his article here:

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue4/jv11no4a2.asp

“In The Ancient History of Iranian Turks, Professor M.T. Zehtabi traced the origin of current Azeris to ancient Sumerian and Ilamite civilizations, dating back over 5,000 years.”

 

Of course such nonsense are popular among pan-Turkist cranks around the world, but they are not taken seriously. 

 

Here is another example of Asgharzadeh plainly lying about history:

 

 

“Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Azeri language and literature flourished under the rule of Shirvanshahs.”

 
Not a single work in the Azeri Turkish (for Asgharzadeh Azeri=turkish) language is from this era!  Shirvanshah were not actually Turkish speaking.  They were a mixture of Iranic and Arabic people and were thoroughly Persianized by the 11th/12th century.( Barthold, W., C.E. Bosworth "Shirwan Shah, Sharwan Shah. "Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2nd edition).  Indeed the Shirvanshah proudly claimed descent from Sassanids.

 

 

“Aside from Dede Qorqut Kitabi, there are other common Turkic works, such as Diwan Lughat at-Turk written by Mahmud of Kashghar in 1072-73 and Qutadghu Bilig written by Yusuf Khas Hajeb in 1077, that bear witness to the early literary works in the Azerbaijani language”

 

Actually that is incorrect.  Modern scholars put Dede Qorqut around 14th-16th century(see above).  And the works of Uighyurs like Mahmud Kashgari and Qudaghdu Bilig are in Eastern Turkic and have nothing to do with Azerbaijani language.  It is like claiming English and German to have the same literature due to their anglo-saxon roots. 

 

 “Among the leading representatives of Azeri literature in this period were such prominent figures as Qetran of Tabriz, Mekhseti Khanum, Khaqani of Shirvan, and Nizami of Ganja. Nizami's well-known Quintuple, Seven Beauties, Khosrow va Shirin, Iskandar-Nameh, Tohfatul Iraqein (Gifts from Iraq), and other works are among the Islamic world's classical literary heritage.”

 

All of these are Persian poets and Persian literature.  The stories like Khosrow va Shirin, Seven Beuties, Eskandar Nameh and etc. have nothing to do with Turkic culture.  Qatran Tabrizi as mentioned already was hostile to the Oghuz nomads and describes them as savages who plundered.  Thus one is left to wonder what relationship they had with Azeri literature?  Nezami Ganjavi clearly calls his poetry “Dorr-i- Dari” (Persian pearl) and does not use the term Azeri literature. Indeed Azerbaijan and Azeri in the 12th century would have been 100% Iranic concepts, since both the name Azerbaijan, its population in the 12th century and the old Azari language were all Iranian concepts.

 

Asgharzadeh falsification continues:

 

“Although Nizami did not produce his work in the Azeri language, his narratives are nonetheless rooted in Azeri culture”  

For Asgharzadeh, Azeri=Turk.  So no way.  Nizami’s work has no relation to say Dede Qorqud.  It is about Sassanid Iran, and etc.  Nezami gives credit many times to Ferdowsi, Shahnameh, Iranian culture but no where does he even mention a single Turkic source for his work.  Khosraw va Shirin, Haft Paykar and etc. are part of Iranian culture.  These have been explained in another article written by an Iranian author on Nezami:

http://sites.google.com/site/rakhshesh/articles-related-to-iranian-history

 

The reason for all these falsification is the fact that in the 12th century, there was no “Azerbaijani Turkic” identity.  The creation of the identity that Asgharzadeh subscribes is very recent as he admits himself: “The idea of an "Azerbaijani" identity in both southern and northern Azerbaijan was first developed by Muhammad Emin Resulzadeh in the early twentieth century.”

 

 

Thus the Persian/Arab Shirwanshahs who patronized Persian culture and literature in reality had nothing to do with “Azeri literature” in the 11th/12th century as Asgharzadeh falsely claims.  In our opinion, the loads of false claims about history are made by Asgharzadeh in order to attack the historical Iranian identity and make anti-Iranian, anti-Armenian, anti-Greek pan-Turkist racists out of the Iranian population who is Turkic speaking today. 

Conclusion

The book of Asgharzadeh contains too many historical errors (both ancient and modern) and too many statistical errors to be taken seriously.  It is just the vent of an distressed pan-Turk.  Many of the statistics are taken from pan-Turkists publications which have no legitimacy and veracity.  Asgharzadeh even recently claims that Persepolis was built by European orientalists (along the lines of Pourpirar).  The guy can not be taken seriously as he is too much into his anti-Iranian world that he has created for himself in order to escape reality.  Asgharzadeh’s main bone of contention is probably the fact that the Azerbaijani language is not an official teaching language in Iran.  With this respect it was shown that the official language of Iran was chosen as Persian in 1906 and even in 1916, when Rasulzadeh visited Urmia, he remarks that although everyone knows Turkish, there is a not a single soul that is interested in reading Turkish and all the magazines and newspapers are in Persian and he could not find one person that would buy a Caucasian Azeri-Turkish language newspaper.

دکتر ماشاءالله آجودانی در کتاب ارزشمندش "یا مرگ با تجدد" با آوردن فهرستی از این روزنامه ها چون "کاغذ اخبار"، "وقایع اتفاقیه"، "روزنامه دولت علیه ایران"، "روزنامه ملتی"، "روزنامه دولت ایران"، "وقایع عدلیه"، "نظامی"، "مریخ"، شرف"، "تربیت"، "تبریز" بزیبائی و شیوائی ویژه خود نشان داده است که زبان فراگیر و "ملی" در آن سالها چیزی جز پارسی نمی بوده است. او همچنین نمونه ارزشمندی نیز به این بررسی می افزاید که قبیله گرایان را چندان خوش نخواهد آمد، سخن از گزارش محمد امین رسولزاده، نخستین رئیس جمهوری آذربایجان است که می نویسد: « در اینجا [ارومیه]نمی توانید غیر از چند مشترک حبل المتین روزنامه خوان دیگری پیدا بکنید. روزنامه های ترکی قفقاز نیز در اینجا خریدار و خواننده ندارند. اصلا در اینجا ترکی خواندن متداول نیست. اگرچه همه ترک هستند ولی ترکی نمی خوانند. همه جای آذربایجان چنین است. حتی چنان تیپهائی وجود دارند که این حال را برای قفقاز نیز پیشنهاد می کنند و خیال می بافند که باید همه عالم اسلام زبان فارسی یاد بگیرند و به فارسی بخوانند. ... در عرض پانزده روزی که در ارومیه بودم هرچه جستجو کردم بلکه یک نفر خریدار روزنامه ترکی پیدا کنم ممکن نگردید»

یا مرگ با تجدد، م. آجودانی، برگ 222 تا 225

  Thus Persian was not imposed as a cultural language in the Pahlavid era.  Also it was shown (while Asgharzadeh did his utmost to hide it) that the pan-Turkist animosity towards Iran pre-dates the Pahlavid era.  Naturally it was also shown that the reactions towards pan-Turkism (including those of Aref and by Azerbaijanis such as  Kazemzadeh, Arani, Mahmud Afshar, Kasravi, Zaryab Khoi, Nateq Naseh, Javad Shaykh-ol Eslami..and other Iranians) must be seen in light of pan-Turkist expansiom/fascism.  These patriotic Iranians wanted to strengthen/solidify the Persian linguistic element and commonality of Azerbaijan with the rest of Iran in order to ensure Iran’s territorial integrity against pan-Turkist expansionism.  Asgharzadeh, Nazmi Afshar, Poorpirar, Zehtabi and other falsifiers of history have a resentment of Iran and Iranians due to their own racist and chavaunistic ethnic upbrining and outlook.  They simply hate Iranians, Iranian culture, Iranian history and have a hard time living with reality.  Thus making up false statistics, pseudo-history and bogus feeling of vicitimization is their way of attacking Iran and Iranian culture.  Seeing the fact that the Turkic language is a recent arrival in Iran (thus by equating Turkic language speakers to a race, they have really cut themselves off from at least two thousand years of Iranian history) and being awashed by anti-Iranian pan-Turkism, they have no choice but to avail themselves to falsehood in order to release their anger.  As shown above, such childish anti-Iranian behaviour has simply lead to further exposition of the fascist nature of pan-Turkism.  As stated initially, had we responded to every lie in the book of Asgharzadeh, then this article which has already turned longer than Asgharzadeh’s book would have been a thousand pages.

 

There are other good responses to pan-Turkist chavaunists like Asgharzadeh, including complete ones like this one by Dr. Hamid Ahmadi:

 

http://www.azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/drhamidahmadishaloodehshekani.htm

 

For example the closing of Persian schools by pan-Turkists in Turkey and Uzbekistan, the merciless killing of 300 unarmed Iranian soldiers when Ferqeh took power and the lies madeup by pan-Turkists on the so called “resistance” of Ferqeh and etc. are responded to well in the above article.