PDA

View Full Version : History of Azerbaijan



Frans_Jozef
Friday, May 14th, 2004, 08:41 PM
http://karabakh-doc.gen.az/ru/azerpeople/ap013eng.htm

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

The notion “History of Azerbaijan” from scientific viewpoint was analyzed by A.Bakikhanov, and after the investigations of M.Rasulzadeh, A.Hosseinzadeh, M.Bakharly and many others, the specific system in studying this notion was elaborated. After the violent seizure of the rule by Bolsheviks in Azerbaijan, the history of our people was paralyzed. Since 1920s in monographs, textbooks, encyclopedias it has been said mainly about the history of the ruling dynasties, some feudal formations, rather than the history of Azeri Turks. In those books the authors pursued one main goal: to fix in our people`s consciousness the idea about the non-autochthonism of Turkic element in Azerbaijan.

In post-Stalinist period the tough censorship in regarding to national questions somewhat weakened. But publicists, rather than historians, took advantage of that and in the 60s the Azerbaijani literature managed to move away from the communist ideology and in some literature works the national spirit was highlighted but still, those works were far away from the politics. And only the poet B.Vahabzadeh could write a dissident (in meaning “too patriotic”, which was unfavourable for Bolshevik`s power) poem, reflecting the fate of Azerbaijani people, the lands of which were divided into Southern and Northern Azerbaijan by Russia and Iran at the beginning of the XIX century. This poem played a leading role in the formation and keeping up of the national spirit of especially youth, but “respectable” historians still didn`t deviate from the “scientifically-approved” (more precisely- conjecture) conception.

The same situation remained in the historiography until 1980s. Namely during that period the mythologist M.Seidov, elamist Yusif Yusifov, the historians Suleyman Aliyarov, Makhmud Ismailov, ethnographer Giyaseddin Geybullaev, the linguists Farkhad Zeinalov, Tofig Hajiev, Aydin Mamedov, Firuddin Agasioglu (Djalilov), Kamil Veli Nariman oglu, Elmeddin Alibeyzadeh, Adalat Tahirzadeh, Arif Rahim oglu, writer Teymour Mamedov and many other scholars in their studies find the ancient Turkic elements on the territory of Azerbaijan [1]. However, the non-systematized investigation of Shummer, Hett, Syrian, Greek-Latin, hay/armenian, Georgian, Arabic-Persian sources, as well as the shortage of the samples of the ancient Turkic language, didn`t allow systematizing the new conception for the revealing the truth about the history of Azeri Turks. In order to overwhelm the old and false conception about the “origination of Turks from Mongols and their coming from Altay” it is necessary to make investigations in the following directions:

1. The grand motherland of Turkic ethnos;

2. The ethnical basis of Azerbaijani archeology;

3. The anthropology of Azeri Turks on the basis of the Turkic ethnos;

4. The ancient Turkic language and its dialects;

5. The ancient Azerbaijani Turkic language and its dialects;

6. Ethno-historical geography of Azerbaijan;

7. The historical data about Azerbaijani folklore and mythology;

8. The historical ethnography of Azerbaijani people;

9. The historical onosmatics of Azerbaijani people;

10. The ancient links with neighboring people;

11. The interrelations of the Turkic language with the dead languages of the Asia Minor;

12. Historical demography;

13. Archeological data which show the directions of the historical settlements;

14. Petroglyphic writings, pictograms and seal symbols in Azerbaijan;

15. The types of letters, used in Azerbaijan;

16. The ethnical composition of the states, formed in the territory of the Ancient Azerbaijan;

17. The peculiarities of the states, founded by the ancient Turks in Azerbaijan in particular;

18. The ethnogeny of Azerbaijani People.

Of course, in order to investigate all these problems, it is necessary to create permanently functioning institutions (under the supervision of the National Academy of the Science of the Azerbaijan Republic), the cathedrals for history, language, literature, oriental studies, philology, archeology, and ethnography. But unfortunately, many historians (not being of Turkic origin), having occupied strong positions, strive to stain the historical past of Azerbaijani People (formers are getting paid, by the way, via the taxes of latter). The “scientific” works, devoted to the abovementioned problems, pass from books to books (like an inheritance) and by very non-professional way. Because of that the publishing of the books, wholly reflecting the history of Azeri Turks, was prohibited. This “veto”, imposed on any objective study of the history of Azerbaijan and overall the Turkic World, stepped back in front of the works of Y.Yusifov and Z.Buniatov (1994), S.Aliyarov (1996). [2]. But the last 7-volumes “scientific work”, issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1998, again relied on the old conception.

In the books about the history of Azerbaijan, some archeological, economic aspects were analyzed more or less objectively. But this is mainly the history of dynasties, particular individuals, regions, the state formations and the government, which regulates the cultural, sociological, law and economic aspects. From here the name of the books come: “The history of Azerbaijan”, but not “the History of Azerbaijani People” whatsoever. Therefore, the most disputable question, related to the ethnic roots of Azeri Turks, led to the appearance of many different conceptions about the genesis of our People. Among Azerbaijani and foreign conceptions, there are three main theories related to those problems:

1) The ancient Azerbaijan has been the Turkic cultural center from the times primordial and the ethnogenyof Azeri Turks has been occurring here. A part of this massif moved to the north, northwest and, especially, to the eastern directions due to the variety of factors: natural cataclysms, the appearance of the private property and antithesis among related tribes, etc. Later on the part of the immigrated tribes came back to their original territories and their consolidation with local tribes takes places, which is the ending phase in the formation of the Azerbaijani People.

2) As if prior to XI century the current Azerbaijani People were nothing but 2 communities Iranian speaking (to the south of the Araz/Araks river) and the Caucasian speaking (to the North of the Araz river, contemporary Azerbaijan). The Oghuz tribes, who came in XI century, assimilated these two communities and by the XIII century in both parts of Azerbaijan the Turkic language became dominant.

3) Turks came to Azerbaijan from the Middle and Central Asia not in XI century but much earlier, i.e. during the period from the III millennium BC.

In order to figure out which of these conceptions best reflect the reality, it is necessary to analyze all of them separately.

The first conception

(which we support) is relatively new not only in the Azerbaijani historiography but also overall in Turkology science. Actually, long ago the academician Y.Marr stated his opinion about the autochthonism of Turks in the Asia Minor, but he didn`t carefully examine the all facts to substantiate this hypothesis. The author, thinking about the Chuvash language as a descendant of Shummer language, as well as via the method of the “four alien elements” and the “theory of the Japhetic languages”, wanted to prove his ideas, but of course, was not able to do so.

The so-called “Sun Theory”, which appeared in the Turkish science due to the active influence of Marr, was weak to prove something. This is because all these methods were built upon uncertain, incorrect, unstable and non-scientific results, and therefore, the serious science didn`t admit “the results”, achieved by such theories.

Unfortunately, even now one can meet such type of “proving”. For example, some assert that the Shummers, the Caucasian speaking Hurrits and even Indo-European Hetts were the ancestors of ProtoTurkic tribes in order to “prove” the aboriginality of the Turkic elements in the Asia Minor. Although some blade-written sources left from those people, the structure of their language was completely alien to Turkic languages. And some morphemic and common lexical similarities show that in ancient times there were contacts between those peoples and Turks. The professors Nedim Tuna and Oljas Seleymenov, who found the largest number of similarities between Shummers and Turkic languages, confirm our words that this was only due to the close contacts of latter with formers [3]. And some still think that the relatedness of Turks and Shummers is an undisputed fact (?); which is not true but only creates new difficulties in studying the history of Azerbaijani People.

Sometimes some supporters of the first conception believe that Turks are the aborigines in the Asia Minor, Central Asia and in Altay, i.e. the motherland of Turks is scattered initially from Anatolia till Mongolia. Such type of ideas can happen only in the minds of the dilettantes in the fields of ethnogeny and glotto-genesis. As a rule, these scholars welcome the theory of the “Altay family of languages”. This theory, which originated 250 years ago “allows” saying that the Turkic language is related to Mongolian and Tunguss-Mancjurian languages (some even add Korean and Japanese). The idea of the “origin of Turks from Mongols” became an axiom and any disagreements with this theory were subject to an immediate derision and sharp critique. But grammar, phonetics, lexics and phraseology of Turkic languages are completely different from Mongolian. And up to now, no matter how many studies have been done, no confirmation of the “kindship of Mongols and Turks” were found [4]. Those who claim that grand-motherland of Turks is scattered from Mongolia to Anatolia forget one detail: a particular individual can be born in a concrete city/village/house and s/he cannot be born simultaneously in two areas. The same holds true for the ethnos, meaning that latter cannot be formed on such a huge territory. The ethnogeny takes place in some concrete area and the distance from Anatolia to Altay is estimated at thousands kilometers! Simply stating, Turks could not be formed simultaneously in such distant areas like Azerbaijan and Mongolia. BUT! An ethnos can migrate after formation. So, because of the abovementioned reasons, the part of the Turkic tribes scattered away from Azerbaijan (like a child who leaves the parents` house after s/he grows up).

Prof. Firuddin Agasioglu, writing about the autochthonity of Turkic elements in the Asia Minor, investigated this problem from the point of view of linguistics, morphology and historical geography in the book “The morphology of Azerbaijani language” (1988), in articles “Proto-Azeri theonyms” (1988), “The language family and language union” (1989), “Ethnolinguistic data about ancient borrowings” (1989). In his book “Azer Halqi” (2000) he analyzed those problems more widely. [5]. Regarding to his conception, his nine-volume book “Doqquz Bitik” about the history of Azerbaijan and Turkic world is going to be published soon. Here one can find the thorough study of the ancient Turkic archaeology, anthropology, primary sources, mythology, history of states, formed on the territory of the ancient Azerbaijan, historical ethnography, onomastics, morphology history in folklore, history of language, and, finally, the origin of Azeri Turks. In the III-I millenniums BC on the territory of Azerbaijan there were such states like Subar Kingdom, Subar El, Kuman Kingdom, the history of which is investigated in that 9-volume books. Besides that, the conception about the Turkic origin of such kingdoms like Lullubies, Turuk and Kuti is analyzed. [6].

Hence, the first conception is expressed in the works of Firuddin Djalilov in the following way: the ancient Turkic ethnos, which is the Mediterranean type of the European race and the carrier of the Khalaph, Djarmin, Khasun, Northern Ubeid, Kura-Araz archeological cultures, in the mid of the IV millennium BC began collapsing into certain groups. Namely during that period the settlement of the carriers of the Turkic dialects takes place. Mainly they move toward the Central Asia, the Southern Siberia, Altay; some migrate to the northern directions. This is confirmed by the archaeological data. But the scatter of the As/Az/Azer tribes occurs on the perimeter Derbent √ Tbilisi √ Erzerum √ Mosul - Kerkuk √ Khamadn √ Baku √ Derbent. This is the ethnical geography of Azerbaijani People. Some part of the tribes, moved to the east and north, like (Avars, Huns, Seljuk, Saga-Gamer, Suvars/Savirs, Bulgars and others) later comes back to their original lands √ Anatolia and Azerbaijan. After the consolidation with related Turkic tribes, the local tribes (already as a formed ethnos) move to the new era.

One of the main advantages of our conception is that it allows clarifying some questions, which could not be answered by the old conception. For instance, the question of the appearance of the common lexical elements due to the ancient contacts of Turks with other peoples of the Asia Minor, as well as in the east; furthermore, the chronological factor of the archaeological findings, anthropological data confirm the settlement of the parts of the Turkic tribes not from Altay toward west, but just the opposite, from the Asia Minor to Altay.

The second conception

a) Azerbaijanis are the autochthons;

b) The language, used in Azerbaijan, came from outside.

As we can see, the first postulate does not contradict to our hypothesis and therefore, there is no need to examine it further. But the second thesis is the basic in this conception and hence, it is necessary to consider it carefully. The proponents of this postulate (formed in the European, Soviet and Iranian historical science) created the schools in both Northern Azerbaijan (leaded by I.Aliyev) and the Southern Azerbaijan (where a leader role was played by Seid Akhmed Kesrevi) [7].

The author of the book “The ancient Azeri or Azerbaijani language”, S.A.Kesrevi has admitted at the end of his life that he was bought by the shah regime, was fulfilling shah`s order and purposely distorted the history of Azerbaijani people (!!!) Kesrevi was repentant himself. But I.Aliyev, who is not Azerbaijani and even Turk, up to now, continues fabricating the history of the people, whose bread he consumes! And for such a “serve” the “Honor Award”, in addition, is given to him. So “undisputedly honest”, that there is nothing to add!

Thus, according to the second thesis of this conception, Caucasian-speaking people lived to the North from the Araz (Araks) River only, and to the South of Araz, only Iranian speaking did. The Seljuk, who came from the Central Asia, has “changed” the language in both sides of Azerbaijan in XI century and thus, turkified the entire population. As if only after that the “Iranian speaking” Atropatenians became Azerbaijanis (implying only the population of the Southern Azerbaijan). But even Iranists know the fact that Iranian-speaking tribes (including Persians) appeared in the Southern Azerbaijan (Atropatena) only in the VII century BC. However, the proponents of this second conception argue that prior to the VII century BC the population of the Southern Azerbaijan “remains unknown in terms of their origin”. And as if these “unknown population” became Iranian speaking after the flood of the Iranian tribes and after the flood of Seljuk, they became Turkic speaking.

Yes, the “iranization” and “turkization” did occur in some small parts of the Southern Azerbaijan, but to say that this occurred totally everywhere is incorrect. More than that, it is not right to assert that one and the same people could twice “change” its ethnical consciousness, customs, language, culture, and traditions. For example, it is known that such people as Kurds, Beluji, Talish, Mazandarans and others did irinized but none can assert that they were “turkified”. In addition, the proponents of the second conception do not take into account the simple fact: when the Seljuks came, they strengthened the influence of Islam, and as a result the influence of Arabic language (which was used for the official correspondence, as well as in the scientific literature) was intensified. Besides that, the Farsi/Persian was language of the poetry, and not only in Azerbaijan, but in the Close East also. Moreover, this language was blossoming and not only Persians but also some Turkic poets were writing in Farsi and Arabic. Thus, how in such conditions the Iranian speakers could be “turkified”? So, the consolidation of the Southern Azerbaijan with Seljuk could take place only in the case, if the former was initially mostly Turkic.

The ethnic composition of the Northern Azerbaijan is considered in the following way: as if the population of the country (called Albania/Aran, to the North of the Araz River) was entirely Caucasian speaking and then also was “Turkified”. Therefore, according to this postulate, the Northern part of Azerbaijani People was ethnically Caucasian speaking. If so, it would be interesting to know, how come no “ancestors`” word did remain in our language? How come the language, customs, culture, traditions, folklore, mythology, kitchen, music of the Northern Azerbaijanis is not consistent with the language, customs, culture, traditions, folklore, mythology, kitchen, music of the Caucasian speaking people (Udins, Krizes, Budugs, Rutuls, Lezgins, Tsakhurs) but is fully coinsides with “tukified/irinized” Southern Azerbaijanis. None of the proponents of this conception can answer this question because they still want (exactly want) to see and describe the history of majorities of the Albanian/Aran (meaning that Turkic people, i.e., Saga-Gamer, Gargars, Kimmers, Kangars, Azer/Azar/Khazar, Bulgars, subars/suvars/savir/sabers, Albanians, Arans, Gogars, Maskuts, Huns, and many others) as the history of the Caucasian-speaking Udi [8].

Every question can be answered only if it is considered from different viewpoints. Many historians, studying the history of Azerbaijan, do not posses enough knowledge on Turkology (as well as some Turkologists do not have reliable historical-chronological materials). In addition, often the mythologists, ethno graphs, Turkologs, linguists contradict each other in certain points. And this leads to the result, that scientists start believing that Azeri Turks became such only after the flood of Seljuk. And all those who distort the reality by taking a side of this conception, every time, due to the new and new facts about the presence of Turks in the Asia Minor, had to “push back” the data of the “Turkization” toward the more and more ancient periods: firstly toward IX century AD, later even couple of centuries back. But some even admitted that even in VII century BC the Turkic tribes did live in Azerbaijan [9]. The information, which one can meet in the primary sources, leaves no chances for those who do deny the presence of Turks in the Near Asia and the Caucasus. The only argument of the proponents of this conception is that Turkic language was admitted as an Altayc. BUT even now there is no evidence about the relatedness of Turks with Koreans, Mongols, Manchjurs and etc. And the impossibility of such relatedness caused some famous Turkologists to admit the incorrectness of “the theory of Altayc origins”. [10]

Third Conception

The proponents of this notion assert that before Christmas there were no Turkic tribes in the Caucasus. The first one who raised his voice against this thesis was Mamed-Djafar Djafarov, who severely criticized this idea in the theoretical-scientific meeting (1984). He suggested some corrections and first offered a conception, according to which, Turkic tribes (who were the parts of the big Turkic ethnos), didn`t flee but returned to Azerbaijan where their ancestors lived initially [11]. This was the first impulse that caused much deeper studying of Turkology among scholars, who didn`t accept the “Altayc theory”; many seminars, related to the origin of Azeri Turks, took place [12]. But if in 1984 we didn`t have many facts due to the insufficient studies of this problem, now the data and proofs we obtained compose a wide system. Many scholars actively work in that direction [13]. But some of them still remain under the influence of the “Altayc theory”, many of them in their studies point out the relatedness of Shummers and Turks from one hand, but form the other hand, the relatedness between Turks and Mongols. Sometimes, under the impact of “the historical monopolies” some “scholars” still write about the flood of Turks into the Caucasus even though the fact of the presence of the Turkic elements in Andropov, Afanasieff, Anauss, Tagar archaeological cultures is evident. But they, however, do not know that chronological data point out the migration not from the east to the west, but just the opposite, from the Asia Minor to the east. It would be good if they considered the works of even Russian authors, who were studying the archeological monuments.

CONCLUSION

So, after considering all three basic conceptions related to the ethnogenyof Azeri Turks, one could decide which one has a right to exist. This is clear already. We see how the theories about the Altayc origin of Turkic people are subject to collapse, because the all efforts of the conjectural authors will not save their conception (taking into account, that these conceptions are mainly politicized, “justified” by the fabricating of the history of the people in order to laud the others). And only does the first conception allow to objectively considering the history of Azerbaijani People and the entire Turkic World. Many questions are resolved with the help of the latter conception.

In every science it is possible to find the methods of investigations regarding to some particular subject. Although the main role here is played by erudition, goals, training, knowledge level, the familiarity with the variety of methods, still the nature of the subject/question defines the methods of solutions. Since we were considering the history of particular people, it is necessary to pay attention on the studying of the problems related to the ethnos and thus, on such sciences like ethnography, history, archaeology, culturology, anthropology, philology, physiology, sociology, demography, economics, and some sub-subjects: ethnic linguistics, ethnic biology, ethnic anthropology, ethnic genetics, ethnic geography, ethnic psychology, as well as the methods of ethnology, ethnogeny, which provides large amount of information. Taking into account all these, as well as the diachronic, retrospect, deductive, comparable, glottogenetic, area-linguistic methods, in regard with study of the history of Azerbaijan, one will be able see the importance of the complex and methodical approach.

Both language and culture of Turks is much more ancient than Egypt, Shummer, Assyrian, Mongolian languages and culture. Unlike other language families, Turkic languages began scattering in different directions after the formation of the ancient roots and the faultless system in its structure appears.

Data, obtained via the glotto-genesis methodology, are also confirmed by the geology. There were no human settlements on the territory of Shummer in deep ancient times, like in Latvia the first human relics appeared not earlier than 10 millennium BC [14]. However, the blossoming of the Azerbaijani archaeological culture occurs at the time when the Europe was under the ice. But in Altay, (where some want to “kick” us) the archeological culture is 4-5 thousand years behind from that in Azerbaijan.

In XX century due to the large variety of the humanitarian sciences, the numbers of the experts in classical sciences like east studying, Turkology, philology, history, somewhat decreased. From on hand, with such a variety, the internal, deeper development of each particular science occurs (for example, in linguistic, literature, history, Turkology, etc); but from the other hand this lead to the stagnation in some others fields. Let`s hope that the complex methodology, offered in those conceptions, will help to form the new ethnological methods in archaeology, relying on the system of the ethnic attributes.

The complex study of the dialectical data linkages, considered from the view points of different scientific fields conceptually, having stable fundament, allows to achieve certain goals in studying the history of Azerbaijani People. The success of this method depends also on how ours as well as foreign sources will be considered.

REFERENCES

“Проблемы Азербайджанской филологии” /Вып. I-III/ Баку, изд. “Elm”, 1983, 1984, 1991.

“Azerbaijan tarixi”, Baki, 1994, 1996.

N.Tuna, “Shumer ve Turk dillerinin tarihi ilqisi ile Turk dilinin yashi meseleleri”, Ankara, 1990, c. 49;

О.Сулейменов, “АЗ и Я”, Алма-Ата, 1989, с. 242. По вываоду автора, образцы указывают на длительное тесное взамиодействие языков.

Altayic/Mongoloid appearance of some parts of the genetics cannot prove the relatedness of Turks and Mongolians. The genetic sciences show that a gene, not receiving permanent support during several generations, loses its information in the 12th generation and start reflecting the realities of the areas where its carrier NOW lives (i.e. climate, daily-life, feeding and so on). And since Turks scattered around different regions, their racial characteristics are formed as European, Mongolian and even Negroid Ian (e.g., the pace Kush in the Southern Egypt, or district Tanjer in Morocco, which was accepted from Turkic Tanri/Tenkri/Tenger (GOD). As for the name “mongol” - it was adopted by the steppers (inhabitants of plain) of the Central Asia from Median Turks - moguls/muguls, who settled in Altay. This name further was changed in regarding to the Mongolian phonetics (С.Чагдуров, “Происхождение Гессериады”, Новосибирск, 1974). Another example, supporting this, comes from Rashid-ad-Din ((“Сборник летописей”, М.-Л., 1952), that Chingiz-khan, the founder of the MOGOLIAN (not MoNgolian) Kingdom was a blue-eyed blonde Turk descendant of Burdjings (Wolf Oghus [Turkic tribal unity]). Another Muslim historian Gardizi (“Zainal-Ahbar”, Теheran, 1947, pp. 276-277) - brings the analogous fact, that “Kyrgyz people have the same features as saclabs (Turkic tribes): white skin, somewhat red hairs” (see also: В.Бартольд, “Извлечения из сочинения Гардизи “Заин Ал-Ахбар”/приложение к отчету о поездке с научной целью в Среднюю Азию. 1893-1894 гг. Соч., т-VIII, М., 1973, Persian text, с.28).

Ф.Агасыоглу, “Azer xalqi”, BAKI-2000, С.166, 174, 248-249.

F.Aghasioglu, “Dogguz Bitik”, Baku, 2000 (manuscript).

Concerning this information see A.Tahirzadeh, “Kesrevicilik: koku, ardicillari, dirildilmesi” (Azerbaycan filologiyasi meseleleri, № II-III, Baku, 1984, 1991).

История Азербайджана, т-I, Баку, 1998, с.331; Ф.Мамедова, “Политическая история и историческая география Кавказской Албании”, Баку, 1986.

Concerning this information see: “Azerbaycan filologiyasi meseleleri”, т-I-III, (1983-1991); V.Gukasyan, V.Aslanov, “Исследование по истории Азербайджанского языка дописьменного периода” (1986); M.Seidov, “Azerbaycan xalqinin soykokunu dushunerken” (1989); A.Sumbatzadeh, “Азербайджанцы – этногенез и формирование народа” (1990); G.Geibullaev, , “К этногенезу Азербайджанцев” (1991), , “К этногенезу Азербайджанцев” (1991) etc.

During last decades researches of such turkologists as G.Klauson, V.Kotvitz, B.Serebrennikov, G.Sanjeev, G.Dreufer, F.Zeynalov, А.Scherbak proved the absurdity of this conception. They prove that lexical coinsision in Turkic and Mongolian languages is not the result of genetic kindship, but was caused by interrelation (e.g., large amount of latin words in English language can not prove kindship of Anglo-Sax with Latins).

For results of the conference see newspapers: “Бакинский Рабочий” (20.IV.1984), “Коммунист” (15.V.1984).

Many Azeri specialists conduct researches in conformity with this conception: A.Demirchizadeh, F.Zeynalov, F.Jalilov (Aghasioglu), K.Narimanoglu, E.Alibeyzadeh, A.Tahirzadeh, A.Rahimoglu, M.Gipchag M.Ismayil, Y.Yusifov, S.Aliyarly, A.Alekperov, M.Huseynov, V.Aliev, F.Mahmudov, M.Seidov, B.Abdullayev, A.Ajalov, M.Hatemi, A.Asker, J.Beydilli, M.Zehtabi, H.Mamedov, A.Safarli, G.Geibullaev, H.Halilov, N.Rzaev, H.Humbatov, Y.Oghuz, Z.Hasanov.

Kiziroglu (1953, 1965, 1992), Yavuz (1968), Тоgan (1981), Коshay (1984), Gunaltay (1987), Аydа (1987, 1992), Kafesoglu (1989), N.Tuna (1990), Memish (2002), Chetinskaya (1996), Antonov (1970, 1984), Musayev (1975, 1984), Zakiyev (1995, 1998), Ajamolov (1971, 1974, 1978), О.Suleimenov (1975), Bekmidarov (1987), Miziev (1986, 1990), Nurichan Fattah (1990) and others.

“История Латвийской ССР”, 1975.

Shapur
Saturday, May 15th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Franz you know that in Azerbaijan actuall live 1,5 million Talysh"Iranians", 2 million Parsis"Iranians" and 0,5 million other Iranians like Kurds.
50% of the people in Azerbaijan see their self as Iranians.
The Azaris are of Median/Scythian heritage.
Later they became turkish speaking.
;)