| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - People of Azerbaijan
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


People of Azerbaijan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
Poll Question: ?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
17 [68.00%]
8 [32.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 11:19
In the Soviet Union,Azeris were called Caucasian Tatars.So yes they are the same and they are not different because Caucasian Tatars are Azeri Turks ;-) .

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 13:55
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

One very basic question for an absolute novice: are "Azeris" and "Caucasian Tatars" the same people or are they different?
 
Nobody has yet answered the questions as to what the Azeris called themselves in Imperial Russia. Did they also call themselves Tatars?
 
It depends on a historical period. In the 18th-19th century the term "Mountain Tatars" or "Caucasian Tatars" was applied almost to all indigenous people of Caucasus of Muslim faith.
 
The reason is simple. Before the Russian conquest most of the region was under control of the Crimean Tatar Horde with Crimean Khans giving a special attention to Caucasus to the point that young Crimean Tatar princes were educated in the "art of war" in Caucasus mountains.
 
The steppe in fron Caucasus mountains had actually a huge Tatar population at that time, mostly Nogay Tatars. Also Tatar at that time was a lingua franca in Caucasus.  In the Eastern Caucasus the same role was played by Kumyk Turkic language of Dagestan.  Even now one can see that the culture of Crimean Tatars, their costumes, art and music are incredibly similar to the culture of Caucasus.
 
 
So, because of this reasons all the Muslim population of Caucasus was frequently referred to  in Russia as "Mountain" or "Caucasian Tatars."
 
Even in Tolstoy's stories about Caucasus local people are called "Tatars."  When the Russian got to Trancaucasia and got in contact with the people that inhabited the modern Azerbaijan it was immediately discovered that they were much more similar to Northern Caucasian Muslims rather then Christians of Transcaucasia i.e. Georgians and Armenians, so the reference "Tatars" also was applied to Azeris. Azeris themselves as well as most of Caucasian Muslims simply called themselves "Muslims" at that time.
 
By the end of the 19th century, however, Russian government already realized that Caucasus is actually inhabited by different distinct people who can't be called "Tatars" by default. Also the developing Azeri intillegentsia started to use the term "Azeri," this name actually had originated in the North-Eastern Iran and was only in the second half of the 19th century adopted as a designation for the young distinct ethnicity of Transcaucasian Turks. That name was complitely legitimized in the Soviet Union and became the official name for the Azeri Soviet republic.
 
Also by the end of the 19th century the name name ""Tatars" wasn't already applied to all Caucasian peoples. They were usually designated with their original names.
 
However, the name "Caucasian Tatars" still can be used today. "Proper Tatars" still live in Caucasus, those are Nogays. And also Kabadino-Balkarians can be referred as "Caucasian Tatars" as well, cause they are direct descendants of Kipchaks, who are also the main ancestors of Tatars.
 


Edited by Sarmat - 11 Aug 2009 at 13:57
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 21 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1357
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 18:14
Very interesting info, Sarmat, thanks.

Yes, many years ago I read "The Cossacks" by Tolstoy, and the people whom he referred to as "Tatars" were actually Chechens. Yet their shaven-headed fashion, dress, and warcraft had certain elements in common with the real Tatars.

I wonder when the "Azeris" actually developed a collective consciousness as one people, as they live spread around the Caucasus and Iran. Their language is intelligible to Anatolian Turkish and also Turkmen. Did they actually become aware of their distinctiveness from other Muslim groups such as Turks and Turkmen only from the 19th century onwards.

On many of the historical records that I read, there was apparently a widespread ethnic violence in the Caucasus region in 1905 between "Tatars" and Armenians. Were these "Tatars" Azeris, or were they of any Muslim background?
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Aug 2009 at 22:45
Nice explanation Sarmat.

Calvo, the Armenian-Tatar war was between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian%E2%80%93Tatar_massacres_1905-1907



Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:08
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

One very basic question for an absolute novice: are "Azeris" and "Caucasian Tatars" the same people or are they different?
 
Nobody has yet answered the questions as to what the Azeris called themselves in Imperial Russia. Did they also call themselves Tatars?
 
It depends on a historical period. In the 18th-19th century the term "Mountain Tatars" or "Caucasian Tatars" was applied almost to all indigenous people of Caucasus of Muslim faith.
 
The reason is simple. Before the Russian conquest most of the region was under control of the Crimean Tatar Horde with Crimean Khans giving a special attention to Caucasus to the point that young Crimean Tatar princes were educated in the "art of war" in Caucasus mountains.
 
The steppe in fron Caucasus mountains had actually a huge Tatar population at that time, mostly Nogay Tatars. Also Tatar at that time was a lingua franca in Caucasus.  In the Eastern Caucasus the same role was played by Kumyk Turkic language of Dagestan.  Even now one can see that the culture of Crimean Tatars, their costumes, art and music are incredibly similar to the culture of Caucasus.
 
 
So, because of this reasons all the Muslim population of Caucasus was frequently referred to  in Russia as "Mountain" or "Caucasian Tatars."
 
Even in Tolstoy's stories about Caucasus local people are called "Tatars."  When the Russian got to Trancaucasia and got in contact with the people that inhabited the modern Azerbaijan it was immediately discovered that they were much more similar to Northern Caucasian Muslims rather then Christians of Transcaucasia i.e. Georgians and Armenians, so the reference "Tatars" also was applied to Azeris. Azeris themselves as well as most of Caucasian Muslims simply called themselves "Muslims" at that time.
 
By the end of the 19th century, however, Russian government already realized that Caucasus is actually inhabited by different distinct people who can't be called "Tatars" by default. Also the developing Azeri intillegentsia started to use the term "Azeri," this name actually had originated in the North-Eastern Iran and was only in the second half of the 19th century adopted as a designation for the young distinct ethnicity of Transcaucasian Turks. That name was complitely legitimized in the Soviet Union and became the official name for the Azeri Soviet republic.
 
Also by the end of the 19th century the name name ""Tatars" wasn't already applied to all Caucasian peoples. They were usually designated with their original names.
 
However, the name "Caucasian Tatars" still can be used today. "Proper Tatars" still live in Caucasus, those are Nogays. And also Kabadino-Balkarians can be referred as "Caucasian Tatars" as well, cause they are direct descendants of Kipchaks, who are also the main ancestors of Tatars.
 


Interesting that they chose a Persian word for an Iranian region for Caucasian Tatars.  Why did they neglect using a Caucasian Turkic name and instead used a name from a bordering country outside of the region with a name completely unconnected to the Turkic identity?

In Iran Azeris were and are simply known as Turks, Azeri is used but much less since it isn't an ethnic term since there are also Kurds, Armenians and Talysh that live in Azerbaijan of Iran, so they can also be caled Azeri.

The Tatar influence in Iranian Azerbaijan is much less than in the Caucasus, the Iranian Turkic identity developed in several waves, the first being the Seljuq Turks and finished probably with Afshar and Qajar Turkmen with the largest and most decisiive influx coming with Timurleng in between, which established Turkish as the dominant language. 

I would say that in terms of origin, Iranian Azeris have more in common with Anatolian Turks because both came directly from Central Asia not via the Caucasus like Tatar Azeri Turks.  What gave the Tatar Turks and Iranian Turks a common identity I believe was the Safavids, I don't think that there is as much commonality between Azeri Turks and Tatar Turks from further north, is there?


Edited by Zagros - 12 Aug 2009 at 00:14
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:17
I'm currently reading the Book of Dede Korkut.  You can notice it saying "in the days of the Oghuz" occasionally.  In the past sense.  The book was probably written in the early 13th century so we can  take by then the name Oghuz wasn't in use much any longer and had been replaced by Turkmen. 

So the first wave of Oghuz migrations would have referred to themselves as Oghuz Turks.  Their division would be between the Inner Oghuz and the Outer Oghuz.  As they started converting to Islam they began to call themselves Turkmen.  I'm not sure how interchangeable the terms Turkmen and Turk were but the Turkmen of Iraq, who are closer to Azeri Turkish than Anatolian Turkish, still call themselves Turkmen as well as the early Anatolian beyliks.

They did distinguish themselves from Iranic muslims, linguistically obviously but also culturally as well.  The Aqqoyunlu state structure was divided along ethnic lines.  Iranic peoples would be in charge of religious institutions, trade and state bureaucracy but nomadic Turks controlled the more powerful military, war council and Royal house.  Intermixing between Turk and Persian was rare originally.  According to Vladimir Fedorovich Minosrky "like oil and water, the Turcomans and the Persians did not mix freely".
Qara Usman, the Aqqoyunlu founder advised his sons not to become sedentary saying "sovereignty resides in those who practise the nomadic Turkmen way of life".  Khunji Isfahani, the court historian of Qara Usmans great granson Yaqub ibn Uzun Hasan, praised Yaqub for not settling in the "filthy cities and perverse towns".

Probably about the end of the Aqqoyunlu's reign the Turks would have began to settle and intermix at that time also.  About the end of the 15th century.  As they began to settle and intermix their islamic identity would have increased and Turkmen identity weaken.

I think the picture looks like this.  From about the 9th/10th century, they would consider themselves Oghuz Turks.  As they began to convert they called themselves Turkmen and by the 13th century Oghuz would be replaced by Turkmen.  Although muslim they considered themselves different to settled muslims and their Turkmen identity would be stronger.  By about the 15th century onwards muslim and Turkmen would been about equal in identifying themselves, varying from place to place.  National identity would be determined by who ruled them.  By then they would have been used to living with other ethnic groups, moslty also muslim, so only language differentiated them.  So they would have a common national identity with other peoples as Safavid, Afsharids, Qajari and ultimately Iranian into the present time.  The only exception would be the Turks who came under Russian rule and Turks in Iraq and Eastern Anatolia.  Who are all of the same ethnic stock but have different names.  Azerbaijani Turks in Republic of Azerbaijan and northern Iran, Turkmen in Iraq and Turk in Anatolia.
So from this i think its right to say that Azerbaijani is a geographical term rather than ethnic, i.e. Turks of Azerbaijan.
In the RoA , during soviet rule, Turkish muslim was replaced by Azeri muslim as the soviets classed them and taught them to have an Azeri national identity.  In the RoI, the national identity was Iranian, ethnic Turkish and geographically Azerbaijani.  In Iraq they kept their Turkmen identity and in Anatolia it reverted to Turk.

At least thats how i see it.   Not Tatar or Armenian muslims, they may have constituted a small part but it should be kept in perspective. 
< ="return false">
< id="LIU_txt" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; : ; left: 0px; right: 240px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 19px ! imant; line-height: 50px; display: block;" ="">< id="LIU_sel" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 100px; right: 138px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 17px;">< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Wikipedia< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Wictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Chambers (UK)< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google images< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google define< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">The Free Dictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Join example< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">WordNet< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Google< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Urban Dictionary< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Answers.com< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">rhymezone.com< style="border: 0pt none ; width: 30%; height: 19px;">Merriam-Webster< id="LIU_search" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 68px; right: 68px; font-size: 14px ! imant; height: 19px;" value="Search" ="submit">< id="LIU_prev" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 46px; height: 19px;"><< id="LIU_next" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 24px; height: 19px;">>< id="LIU_mode" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; : ; width: 20px; right: 2px; height: 19px;">0
< id="LIU_0" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">w< id="LIU_1" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">v< id="LIU_2" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">c< id="LIU_3" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">i< id="LIU_4" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">d< id="LIU_5" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">f< id="LIU_6" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">j< id="LIU_7" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">o< id="LIU_8" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">g< id="LIU_9" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">u< id="LIU_10" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">a< id="LIU_11" style="border-style: solid; border-color: black black white; border-width: 1px; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : white;">r< id="LIU_12" style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 0pt; width: 20px; margin-right: 2px; height: 19px; : rgb221, 221, 221;">m
< ="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?lookitupX&title=i&printable=yesX=a%7Btext-decoration:underline%21imant%7DXredir=%5E/wiki/%28.%29%7C%28%5E.?title=%29%28.?%29%28&.%29" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 0; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__0">< ="http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?lookitup&title=i&printable=yes&=a%7Btext-decoration:underline%21imant%7D" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 1; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__1">< ="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?lookitup%BB&term=ea&%BBxcrop=//div%23/table/t/tr/td%5B2%5D/table%7C//td/div%5B@=%27tags%27%5D%BB=td,table%7B:%23fbffea%21imant%7D%7Bwidth:100%%21imant;min-width:0px%21imant;max-width:100%%7Dtd.def_number%7Bcolor:%23666;font-size:14px%7D%BBredir=term=%28.%29%7C%28%5E.?term=%29%28.?%29%28&.%29" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 13; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__9">< ="http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?lookitup&ofrhyme=def&Word=ea&org1=syl&org2=l&xcrop=//p/table&=table%7Bwidth:100%%7D" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 11; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__11">< ="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/ea#lookitup" style="border: 0px none ; top: 42px; left: 0px; right: 0px; bottom: 0px; : ; : 12; : white; width: 100%; height: 100%;" id="LIU__12">
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:23
Zagros, i was writing my reply when you posted, look it at from a Russian perspective.  In Muscovy times the Tatars formed a buffer around the eastern and southern sides of the principality.  The major contact of those Slavs were with the Tatars.  So, due to lack of knowledge, Tatar became a generic term, usually for Turkic peoples but also for muslims too.  So they might of called Azeri Turks Tatars but not because they used to be Tatars.  Make sense?
The nogay and Karachai-Balkars have a different descent from the Oghuz Azeris.  Their descent is Kypchak, Tatars are a Kypchak people.  They spread from the north of the Caspian wheras the Oghuz spread from the south of the Caspian.
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:34
Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:

Zagros, i was writing my reply when you posted, look it at from a Russian perspective.  In Muscovy times the Tatars formed a buffer around the eastern and southern sides of the principality.  The major contact of those Slavs were with the Tatars.  So, due to lack of knowledge, Tatar became a generic term, usually for Turkic peoples but also for muslims too.  So they might of called Azeri Turks Tatars but not because they used to be Tatars.  Make sense?
The nogay and Karachai-Balkars have a different descent from the Oghuz Azeris.  Their descent is Kypchak, Tatars are a Kypchak people.  They spread from the north of the Caspian wheras the Oghuz spread from the south of the Caspian.


Even tho its true, there were also many Turkic tribes that settled here from north of Caspian Sea.

As you know, the Turkic tribes, most notably the Khazars passed Derbent gate and I think you know where it is. Its not a surprise since Azerbaijan had a fertile land and Turkic peopls were Nomadic herdes.

But your right that it had nothing to do with the actual Tatars we know and I had explained it already 2 pages back.


Edited by Emil_Diniyev - 12 Aug 2009 at 00:36
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:39

I never meant Tatars/Kypchaks didnt play a role here, whaterver the Tatar influence it wasn't large enough to define ethnic identity.  The furthest Kypchak got was the Elbrus mountains and Dagestan.  In Daghestan today the south around Derbent speak Azeri (Oghuz) Turkish and in central coastal Dagestan Kumyk (Kypchak) and North Dagestan plains Nogay (Kypchak).  So Daghestan could be the point where Kypchak and Oghuz met.


Edited by AyKurt - 12 Aug 2009 at 00:46
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:54
Yes, the name "Tatars" was applied from the Russian perspectives. Russian came from the North were they they were in contact with actual Tatars and Northern Caucasians under Crimean Tatar influence.
 
Although, Azeri culture was not complitely the same with the Northern Caucasus, from the Russian perspective, it still was very similar with those "North Caucasian Tatars" so, Azeri were labeled as "Tatars" as well (a crucial element here was the Islam, Christian Caucasians weren't called Tatars).
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 00:58
Generally speaking, "Tatar" is a confusing term. It's still used for different people now although not to the exaggerated extent that was before the 20th century. I, for example, think that Volga, Crimean and Siberian Tatars have all the grounds to be considered different people. Yet, all of them are still collectively called "Tatars."
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:07
There are local variations between The Volga, Siberian and Crimean Tatars.  I think, in a political sense, they have been collected under the Tatar label because the 3 Khanates, Kazan, Siberian and Crimean rose out of the disintegration of the Golden Horde, although not the only ones, they are of similar Kypchak stock and form the fringes of the Kypchak space.  So from a political sense they are the same.
But your right you can consider them different from each other in a similar way as the Kazakhs are different to Tatars.


Edited by AyKurt - 12 Aug 2009 at 01:10
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:08
How are the Astrakhan Tatars labeled?  Are the considered Volga Tatars like Kazan Tatars or are they distinguished from thm in the Russian Federation?
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:09
Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:


I never meant Tatars/Kypchaks didnt play a role here, whaterver the Tatar influence it wasn't large enough to define ethnic identity.  The furthest Kypchak got was the Elbrus mountains and Dagestan.  In Daghestan today the south around Derbent speak Azeri (Oghuz) Turkish and in central coastal Dagestan Kumyk (Kypchak) and North Dagestan plains Nogay (Kypchak).  So Daghestan could be the point where Kypchak and Oghuz met.


I know that, I was talking about Khazars.

Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:12
How do the Khazars fit into the debate about Azeris being called Tatars?
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:22
In your post you talked about where Turkic peopls settled here and I pointed out that there were from north of Caspian too....
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:24
Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:

How are the Astrakhan Tatars labeled?  Are the considered Volga Tatars like Kazan Tatars or are they distinguished from thm in the Russian Federation?


Astrakhan itself are within Volga region.


Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:30
Oh ok, i was talking about the Oghuz settlement primarily because it defines the Azeri national character. 
I thought it was obvious other Turkic peoples settled there before the Oghuz and during Oghuz settlement which is why i never mentioned it.

Turkic peoples also settled among other peoples in the Caucasus too.  For example 40,000 Kypchak warriors moved to Georgia to help the Georgians fight the Seljuks.
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
AyKurt View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 279
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AyKurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:32
Originally posted by Emil_Diniyev Emil_Diniyev wrote:



Astrakhan itself are within Volga region.




Yes, but there was an Astrakhan Khanate too.  I was wondering if that affected their identity, like if they see themselves as different to Kazan Tatars or if they see themselves as general Volga Tatars.
"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." ~ Carl Jung
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:40
Have som Azeris  Crimean Tatar ancestors?
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 01:59
Originally posted by Easternbul Easternbul wrote:

Have som Azeris  Crimean Tatar ancestors?


Don't think so.




Edited by Emil_Diniyev - 12 Aug 2009 at 02:05
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 02:01
Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:

How are the Astrakhan Tatars labeled?  Are the considered Volga Tatars like Kazan Tatars or are they distinguished from thm in the Russian Federation?
 
They are called Astrakhan Tatars. But there is a tendency of fusion of them with Volga Tatars now.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 02:05
Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:

There are local variations between The Volga, Siberian and Crimean Tatars.  I think, in a political sense, they have been collected under the Tatar label because the 3 Khanates, Kazan, Siberian and Crimean rose out of the disintegration of the Golden Horde, although not the only ones, they are of similar Kypchak stock and form the fringes of the Kypchak space.  So from a political sense they are the same.
But your right you can consider them different from each other in a similar way as the Kazakhs are different to Tatars.
 
Well, they are, in fact, quite different. Vogla Tatar have their own distinct culture. Crimean Tatar culture is kind of similar to Caucasian and Turkish, Siberian Tatars are very close to Kazakhs (some Kazakhs scholars actually consder them to be Kazakhs).  All three peoples also have a kind of different phenotype. Besides, many Volga Tatars would like to change their name into "Bulgars" and are not happy with "Tatars." Finally, their languages are not the same as well.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 02:26
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The map is totally wrong.
 
Al-Jassas


Do you have a better one? Or better explanation?


Edited by Emil_Diniyev - 12 Aug 2009 at 02:30
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 03:04
Sorry Emil, internet was pretty bad.
 
The map claims to show the provinces during Al-Rashid era. It is totally wrong in the sense it claims provinces that didn't exist, it has the names wrong and the borders too.
 
For example, there was no one Syrian province and one Palestinians. There were the Ajnads, 5 to be more specific and they don't subscribe to the current borders. The province of Jibal is not in the map. Instead the map shows two artificial provinces that came later. It calls Gorgan a separate province which is wrong, it was the capital of Mazandran which is shown as an independent province.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 03:12
Ok but mine was regarding ours. Were that wrong aswell?
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 03:22

I wouldn't put my trust in it. The administrative borders changes several times during the ages when the Arab empires were strong and for several reasons. Some provinces were canceled, some were outsourced to local rulers. Typically, the Abbasid way in province management was much different and more autocratic than the ummayyad way and unlike the ummayyads it included native population. It was however a rule of thumb that no province should have a tiny muslim minority. Provinces that do were treated as frontier provinces or independent cities (the Awasim were in effect a series of independent cities). That is why large parts of what is now Armenia proper was actually part of either Mosul or Diyabakir provinces.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Emil_Diniyev View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emil_Diniyev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 03:31
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I wouldn't put my trust in it. The administrative borders changes several times during the ages when the Arab empires were strong and for several reasons. Some provinces were canceled, some were outsourced to local rulers. Typically, the Abbasid way in province management was much different and more autocratic than the ummayyad way and unlike the ummayyads it included native population. It was however a rule of thumb that no province should have a tiny muslim minority. Provinces that do were treated as frontier provinces or independent cities (the Awasim were in effect a series of independent cities). That is why large parts of what is now Armenia proper was actually part of either Mosul or Diyabakir provinces.

Al-Jassas


Well, here is another one I found.

Arran refers to Azerbaijan proper with Armenia below it. And from what I know, Arran is just the Persian name for Caucasian Albania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania.

So this is prior to the mass-migration of Oghuz Turks even tho Khazars had already settled in some numbers, that we can understand area were still majority non-Turkic. So I m intrested to know if you have some recordings about the Arran at that time.





Edited by Emil_Diniyev - 12 Aug 2009 at 04:04
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 04:40
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by AyKurt AyKurt wrote:

There are local variations between The Volga, Siberian and Crimean Tatars.  I think, in a political sense, they have been collected under the Tatar label because the 3 Khanates, Kazan, Siberian and Crimean rose out of the disintegration of the Golden Horde, although not the only ones, they are of similar Kypchak stock and form the fringes of the Kypchak space.  So from a political sense they are the same.
But your right you can consider them different from each other in a similar way as the Kazakhs are different to Tatars.
 
Well, they are, in fact, quite different. Vogla Tatar have their own distinct culture. Crimean Tatar culture is kind of similar to Caucasian and Turkish, Siberian Tatars are very close to Kazakhs (some Kazakhs scholars actually consder them to be Kazakhs).  All three peoples also have a kind of different phenotype. Besides, many Volga Tatars would like to change their name into "Bulgars" and are not happy with "Tatars." Finally, their languages are not the same as well.


Yes,you are right.But i wouldn't call them Bulgars.Bolgars  or Volga Bulgars is much better because Bulgaria has nothing to do with the old Bolgaria.I don't know but i think that the turkic people of Kazan are russified.
Back to Top
Easternbul View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 75
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Easternbul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2009 at 04:42
Originally posted by Emil_Diniyev Emil_Diniyev wrote:







Aren't the Avar and the Bolgar Empire turkic empires?Or are the Avars mongols?And weren't the Avars in the Xianbei nomads?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 9>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.