By: Mehrazar Suren

It is a well known fact that when the Soviet created (by the direct orders of Sovietg leadership)

http://legacy.wilsoncenter.org/va2/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=home.browse&sort=Collection&item=1945-46%20Iranian%20Crisis

to separate Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan provinces.

When the Azerbaijan democratic party lead by Pishevari took over, they first ask Iranian troops to disarm (with Soviet forces), then they arrested them and subsequently massacred them. This was before even a shot by the Iranian army was fired (this was the era when Ferqeh took over Azerbaijan). One example is a the massacare of 300 Iranian troops by the Ferqeh that brought sadness in both the province of Azerbaijan as well as the rest of Iran and has been documented by Ayatollah Mojtahedi Tabrizi and others.

Professor. Hamid Ahmadi writes on this incident:

یکی از نکته​ی جالب در مقاله​ی فوق اینست:

چنین وضعی در جریان حملات فدائیان فرقه دموکرات به مراکز ارتش و ژاندارمری ایران در آذربایجان روی داد و قبل از هرگونه تخاصم از سوی ارتش، ده​ها نظامی از سوی فدائیان فرقه دموکرات قتل عام شدند. برای نمونه می​توان از قتل بی​رحمانه حدود سیصد نیروی ژاندارمری ایران توسط فدائیان فرقه دموکرات نام برد، که تأسف بسیاری از اهالی تبریز و آذربایجان را برانگیخت و برخی از شاهدان عینی حوادث به آن اشاره کرده​اند(ر.ک.: آیت الله میرزاعبدالله مجتهدی، بحران آذربایجان،(خاطرات آیت​الله مجتهدی تبریزی)، به کوشش رسول جعفریان، ص 138-238). همچنین کشتار مردم زنجان از سوی غلام یحیی دانشیان فرمانده فرقه دموکرات در این شهر زبان​زد همه است(در رابطه با حوادث زنجان ر.ک.: همان، ص 62-63 و 301-302).

See: “Dowlat Maadern o Aqwaam Irani –Hamid Ahmadi” also available here.

http://azargoshnasp.net/Pasokhbehanirani/drhamidahmadishaloodehshekani.htm

“Schenectady Gazette in its of Dec 7, 1945″ writes:” 30 Killed by Iran Rebels in new attacks”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NlM1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=a4YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3475,4534163&dq=radio+reports+from+tabriz+capital+of+azerbaijan+province&hl=en

“”Rebels have killed 30 persons in new attacks in Azerbaijan

province, official reports from Tabriz announced tonight, and Premier Ibrajim

Hakimi demanded freedom of movement into the Soviet-occupied area for

the Iranian government to “redress the givevances of the people.” Insurrectinonist Democratic party members attacked troops billet at Sarab, killing 21 gendarmes and two officers, the reports relayed by the Tabriz radio said. Six other persons were reported killed near Marand, between Tabriz and the Russian frontier, and the police chief at Tabriz was killed in another clash, the radio said. The local police chief and presient of the local tribunals were slain in the Marand fighting, Tabriz, reported. In Tabriz itself, capital of troubled Azerbaijan province, insurrectionists tried to occupy the military garage, but were prevented by Governor Bayat, who just recently took the governship at Tabriz, the broadcast said””

It is of interest that the Sponsor of Ferqeh, Mir Ja’far Bagherov himself had killed 70,000 people:

“By 1940 an estimated 70,000 Azeris had died as a result of purges carried out under Baghirov. The intelligentsia was decimated, broken, and eliminated as a social force and the old guard Communist elite was destroyed.)Historical Dictionary of Azerbaijan, Asian/Oceanian Historical Dictionaries; No. 31 by Swietochowski, Tadeusz Publication: Lanham, Md. Scarecrow Press, 1999)”

This is interesting because in the letters and correspondences of Pishevari with Mir Ja’ffar Bagherov, Pishevari constantly addresses him as “Dear loving and benevolent father” Consequently, such a mass murderer.

In a letter on the Iranian month of 21 Azar, Iranian year 1329, Pishevari and Ferqeh leadership send a letter to Mir Ja’far Bagherov:
“The Khalq (people) of South Azerbaijan who are an integral and inseparable part of Northern Azerbaijan, like all the people of the world, have their hope in the Soviet people and government”.

In Azeri Turkish:

““”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”( by Dr.Enayatollah Reza. Published by “Iranzamin publishing”, Tehran, 1360, pp.211-227)

It should be noted that “South Azerbaijan” for historical Azarbaijan (Iranian region dating to Atropatene) is a name designed to separate this Iranian province from Iran. This issue has been dealt with elsewhere, but sufficient to say is that the name Azerbaijan is Persian (not Turkish), it has no ethnic value till the 20th century, and the people of Arran/Sharvan are not all “Turkish” but there are Iranian,Armenians and Caucasins there was well. Consequently, this is no different than calling the republic of Azerbaijan as Southern Lezginistan, Eastern Armenia and Northern Talyshistan. The most important thing to note is that the name Atropatene/Aturpatakan occurs even before the advent of Turkic speaking groups in world history, and this province in Iran is also diverse.
Going back to the topic of this article, since the Ferqeh had attacked the Iranian and massacred its conscripts, there was bad blood between the Iranian army and the Soviet Ferqeh. Consequently, Ferqeh and its Soviet backers never felt remorse for the killing of Iranian soldiers.

In recent era, pan-Turkist authors in order to feel victimhood claim that 100,000 people were massacred in Tabriz when Iranian army took over. Unlike the realities of the genocides committed by Changiz Khan (most of his troops being of Turkic background) or the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides commited by Turkey, such a false claim by Pan-Turkist does not hold any water.

First, pro-republic of Azerbaijan sources like Swietchowski note:

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))

Although what these scholars say is important here is no better source than the contemporary sources with regards to this event.

Luckily, now archives from that era are readily available on the internet.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vuNkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bIANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1769,4450593&dq=tabriz+azerbaijan+killed+1946&hl=en

The newsreport here reads: “

“Hundreds claimed shot in Azerbaijan Province”

Dect 17, 1946,

London (AP) “The Moscow radio charted Thurday that Iranian central government troops had

shot “hundreds of persons in Azerbaijan province and had instigated “Attacks

on Soviet citizens in the provincal capital of Tabriz”. The broadcast contented that the government troops had broken Iranian Premier Ahmad Qavam’s agreement to enter the province

which borders the Soviet Union, peacebly. “In the course of the last few days over 600 Azerbaijan Democrats have been murdered and about 300 arrested in Tabriz,” a Tass dispatch declated. “Bodies of killed Democrats are scattered through the steets” of the provincial capital, the Russian news agency’s own correspondent in Tabriz wrote in a second dispatch broadcast by Moscow. “Unbridled bandits instigated by anti-Sovient elements” and “with the connivance” of the Iranian central government cammander “are also raiding Soviet institutions and attacking Sovient citizens.” the Tass correspondent added. The broadcast constitued the first major charge by Moscow against the central Iraniang overnment since the Soviet supported semi-autonomous government of Azerbaijan

province agreed last week to allow the entry of central government troops to supervise elections. The Azerbaijan Democratic party was a moving force in the province’s semi-autonomous regime which now has collapsed”

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rRZkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=g38DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5171,6269553&dq=tabriz+azerbaijan+iranian+army+killed&hl=en

We note that Soviet sources who were sponsoring separatism claimed that 600 people belonging to Ferqeh were killed and 300 arrested.

The Iranian government denied the accusations of the Soviet government and radio as reported the Chicago tribute:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/463630202.html?dids=463630202:463630202&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&type=historic&date=Dec+21%2C+1946&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=MASS+SLAYING+AT+TABRIZ+IS+DENIED+BY+IRAN+ARMY+CHIEF&pqatl=google

Besides theSoviet accusation and Iranian government report, a British source which might be more neutral has mentioned:

“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).

Consequently, we make the following conclusion:

1) The Ferqeh in 1945 attacked Iranian officials, troops and police and summarily mass executed some of them. None of these had any ethnic component as most of these troops that were mass executed were Iranian Azeris. But this shows Ferqeh was not a peaceful movement but rather an armed and violent movement (and created and financed by the USSR).
2) The Iranian government army, which also compromised a large Iranian Azeri contingent (and it was the tribal Shahsevans who had an important part inrouting Ferqeh out of Zanjan) took back Iranian land that was under Soviet puppet occupation. During this take back, some members of the Ferqeh attacked Iranian troops and they were killed. The Iranian government only concentrated on political members of Ferqeh.
3) Many reports and books also indicate that the Ferqeh was routed by the people of Tabriz before the Iranian government arrived. It should be noted that Ferqeh had no popular support and collapsed in less than a week (where as the Mahabad government of Qazi Muhammad was able to hold on much longer).

For example an Iranian Azerbaijani writes:

یکی از ایرانیان وطن​دوست و اهالی آذربایجان می​نویسند:

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.

4) We can say that the estimate of Swietchowski which matches that of the British embassy is likely and Soviet estimate of (600 Ferqeh members killed) is an exaggeration. The Iranian army could also be correct, since the people of Tabriz themselves dished out revenge to the Ferqeh members as indicated by eyewitness reports from 1946. It should be noted that any eyewitness report that is not from 1946 is not a valid source, and sources from 1949, 1950 and etc. and today, cannot contradict news reports, eyewitness reports and etc. of the media and the people of the time.
5) Be that it may, the pan-Turk estimates of 25,000 and 100,000 is a falsification, and no such list or grave of such people have been identified (although pan_Turks might in the future makeup such graves as well). The pan-Turk estimate is meant to spread hatred and the claim that Iranian army was a “Persophone army” who massacarred “innocent civilians”. By abusing the fact that Iranians were also called Persian at the time too, and Iranian army is called Persian army , they rely on non-eyewitness accounts. What is important to note here is that it was Ferqeh that attacked the Iranian army, officials and civilians in 1945 and committed atrocity with Soviet support. Consequently, they were members of a warring party, and the Iranian government treated them as a warring party, and not a “dissident voice”. It was an arm conflict, between the Iranian government and a separatist party created, financed and planted by the USSR. The conflict had no ethnic component as the Iranian army, bulk of which was Azeri in the Azerbaijan area, did not target civilians but only members of Ferqeh which was an armed party. The swift and quick collapse of Ferqeh showed that the civilians did not support it, or else it would not collapse so quickly.

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.)

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))

Consequently scholars agree that the swift collapse of Ferqeh was due to lack of support. Similarly, not a single source supports the pan-Turkist claims of 25,000 to 100,000 “dead people” in Azerbaijan. Rather all sources indicate (and the most pro-Ferqeh sources like those of the USSR) that between “400-600” members of Ferqeh were killed by the people of Tabriz and Iranian army. And as mentioned Ferqeh was a warring party which attacked Iranian officials, army and civilians in 1945 as documented by many sources including the eyewitness accounts of Shabistari and news sources from 19145.

These problems belong to the past and it is best to pursue peace and friendship between all peoples of the world. However, one way to cause hatred is to forge and makeup history as is done with the pan-Turk claim of 25,000 to 100,000 “innocent civilians killed by Iranian Army”.

In order to spread hatred, pan-Turks have to comeup with evil “Armenians” or “Persians”.. where we know that if we look at history, the numerous incursions by Oghuz and Turkoman tribes (not related to Turkish speaking Iranians who were Turkified linguistically) an the Mongol incursion (most troops of Turkic stock), the attacks of Timur , etc. wiped out and Turkicized half of Iranian speaking territories (Soghd, Chorasmia, Arran and Azarbaijan) , and killed millions of Iranians.

Compiled by an observer of Wikipedia

Although Wikipedia articles on social sciences are not deemed as reliable as their scientific counterparts, it is important to note that Google search usually has Wikipedia articles on a specific subject in its top five hits. This has made Wikipedia an important propaganda tool for ethno-nationalist, and lobbyist, specifically those of the Azerbaijani government
 Two of these lobbyists in the USA are Javid Huseynov and Adil Baguirov

with variety of new user accounts created by these users. Both users have been sanctioned multiple times for poor behavior by administrators. Both of them have advocated anti-Armenian and anti-Iranian policies. Recently, wikileaks (not to be confused withWikipedia) exposed the Azeri lobby in the US

WikiLeaks: Azeri, Turkish Diasporas Attempt to Form ‘Single Organism’

WikiLeaks: What Are the Activities of Azeri Diaspora Organization

It should be noted that USAN (US Azeri Networks) which was formed by Adil Baguirov had the purpose of : “to advocate for Azerbaijan’s interests with their host government.” Consequently it functions through Elham Aliev. The USAN works actively to deny the Armenian genocide and heritage. Also part of this advocacy by USAN is clear encouragement of pan-Turkist separatism by the Azerbaijani government in Iranian Azerbaijan. This is shown by its encouragement of separatist minded groups like Fakhteh Zamani, Alireza Asgharazadeh, Gunaz T.V. (Ahmad Obali), etc who have a deep hatred towards Iranian peoples specially Kurdish and Persian speaking groups (as well as of course Armenians).

The challenge these groups do face is that the overwhelming majority of Iranian Americans are not Azeris, and virtually all the Iranian-Americans with Azeri background identify themselves as Iranians. The number of people from the republic of Azerbaijan with American citizenship is relatively very small and this means that these lobbyists will try to inflate their numbers in order to counter the grass-root Armenian lobby (which is their main job while spreading the seed of separatism through support of Gunaz T.V. is secondary). Consequently, this is direct involvement of Elham Aliev in Iran’s internal affair.

Similarly, Javid Huseynov (see racist comments) is the head of the lobby organization: “Azerbaijani American Council” which advocates anti-Armenianism and separatism in Iran

Going back to Wikipedia, the main concentration of these users has been to deny Armenian heritage, push pan-Turkist historiography (using very selective non-specialist sources, some of them affiliated with the Azeri government like Fredrick Star, Ferederik Coene, Brenda Shaffer, Svante Cornell and Audrey Altstadt).

In 2010 , two Wikipedia lists (one for Russian and one for English) were discovered. These lists had about 30+ active members who committed fraud through mass voting, reverting, nationalist editing (denying Armenian heritage whenever possible and making pan-Turkist claims on Irans heritage) and etc.

The archives of these lists may be found here and here

After the list was found, the Russian Wikipedia setup a good mechanism (a group of expert non-regional admins) to decide on the controversial topics that pan-Turkist lobbyists were infusing in Wikipedia . After this mechanism was setup, virtually most of the users disappeared in thin air. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia does not have such mechanism which means that pan-Turkists group can write distorted articles about Armenian and Iranian history, as well as forge pan-Turkist historiography.

Some of the comments on the off-line Wikipedia list are illustrative of the lobbying mindsets

Javid Huseynov

“Come on guys, I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. But there are certain bounds of diplomatic reason and logicin dealing with enemy, «toporniye» approaches result in what Turks are suffering from today with allegations of armocide. Javid”

“Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others. «Turk is a master of his destiny», the old saying goes.”

“You and others know well that I support tough stance on Armenians, until they leave not only Karabakh but also territories of former Iravan khanate. They have historically proven not to be a trustworthy nation, should always be kept as servant/dependent people, and not allowed toresettle in any other part of Azerbaijan.”

Overall, the activity of the Azerbaijani government through its lobbyists can be seen in both Wikipedia as well as the US congress. These groups try to push pan-Turkism, anti-Armenianism and anti-Iranian hatred in the US, throughout the world and of course Iran. One of their main aims is to foster inter-ethnic violence in Iran and this is only possible through outside support for the republic of Azerbaijan in this matter through a 3rd country.

All Iranians and Armenians should become aware of these lobbying groups, and their nefarious purpose which is to foster inter-ethnic violence and hatred for Armenians and Iranians. Also the activities of these organized groups in Wikipedia and US congress (where many politicians court the highest bidder) should be noticed and visible to all Iranians/Armenians. Articles touching upon Iranian/Armenian history with regards to Azerbaijan, Arran and Sharvan should be taken with doubt in the English Wikipedia due to these lobbyist groups. However, the Russian Wikipediahas a serious mechanism to deal with these lobbyists groups.

Given the Iranian population is much larger, and the majority of Iranian Azeris are patriotic, it is clear that Aliev and his lobbyists are biting more than they can chew and if such provocations do not stop, eventually it will backfire as more Iranians wakeup to the anti-Armenian/Anti-Iranian behaviors of these groups. As the case with the fascist president Elchibey illustrates, fascism usually bites at home first.

This Article is also available in Persian  پان ترک ها، ویکی پدیا و لابی آمریکایی

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/2304424/Cyrus-cylinder’s-ancient-bill-of-rights-’is-just-propaganda’.html

UK’s Daily Telegraph
By: Harry de Quetteville
Date: July 21, 2008
It is rather surprising that the Daily telegraph would choose to print what can at best be characterized as half-truths or “theories” generated by a very select group of revisionists. This has obliged me to respond to Mr. de Quetteville’s citations in items (1) – (5).
The Cyrus Cylinder now housed in The British Museum. The policies advocated by Cyrus in this Cylinder are corroborated by independent Greek and Biblical sources as well as by a number of other archaeological findings in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), Egypt and western Anatolia (in Modern Turkey).
(1) …German historians…claim that the UN is unjustly celebrating the rule of a man [Cyrus the Great] every bit as despotic as any other land-grabbing leader…Klaus Gallas…told Spiegel magazine…that the UN had given the Cyrus scroll false

Read the rest of this entry »

It has been brought to my attention that you describe Parthian as a Turkish language in your website (or a related website):

www.compmore.net/~tntr/crescent_starb.html

This is linguistically incorrect. Parthian is not a Turkic language. It is an old western Iranian language that is also called “Parthian Pahlavi”. It is a very close relative of “Middle Persian” or “Sassanian Pahlavi”. The syntax and vocabulary of Parthian are recorded (e.g. Dinkard) and are of Iranian stock. The language of “Parthian” is actually called “Pahlavi” – deriving from “Partha” into “Pahla”. It is evident that the individual who hosts this website does not speak Pahlavi.

Allow me to demonstrate this language and its Iranian character by way of example:
“haft celan istaft polawad im pad dast grift”
which means
“the seven daggers of hard steel that I have grasped with my hand”.
Many of the words are common in modern Persian (e.g dast – hand; Polawad (poolad in Persian) – steel; – grift (gerefet in Persian) – grasped). “Haft” is the number seven; clearly Indo-European – the Turkish counting system is entirely different. For an introduction to Pahlavi, you may wish to refer to the following works by Professor Mackenzie:

MacKenzie, D.N. (1967). Notes on the transcription of Pahlavi BSOAS, 30, 17-29
MacKenzie, D.N. (1971). A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Routledge.

Read the rest of this entry »

More than 400+ authors including all the geographers mentioned in Site A have maps that refer to the body of water Persian Gulf. The following taken from Persian Gulf (Atlas Of Old & Historical Maps (3000 B.C. – 2000 A.D.), (1 and 2) (Hardcover) by Mohammad Reza Sahab published by Center for Document and Diplomatic History; 1st edition (2005) available at:

http://www.amazon.com/Persian-Gulf-Atlas-Historical-Maps/dp/9648403449

provides a complete listing. We will provide some scanned photos of the source which unlike site A lists the exact source of the map. Note from the era of the Greek classics the name Persian Gulf has been consistently used for the body of water known today as Persian Gulf. Also it is well known fact that the Arabian Gulf refers to the red sea in many classic western texts. A list which contains about 400 authors who have used the term Persian Gulf since the time of the ancient Greeks is given below., Please continue with the text after examining this list.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Some remarks on Farabi’s background: Iranic (Soghdian/Persian) or Turkic(Altaic)? Goshtasp Lohraspi This article discusses the background of Abu Nasr Farabi (872-950/951 A.D.), one of the most famous Muslim Polymaths who contributed to many fields including philosophy, music theory, logics, sociology and others. Farabi is one of the greatest figures of humanity and his background is irrelevant in terms of the heritage he left behind. Yet there has been some dispute with this regard and the most common opinion given is Iranic or Turkic. The earliest texts discussing his background were written 300+ years after Farabi (The first one mentioning him as Persian, the second as a Turk and the third one as a Persian). Due to earlier Western translation of Ibn Khalikhan (the second source describing his background), there have been some Encyclopedias and books who have not critically examined the matter. Based on analyzing all the early evidences, we believe that Farabi was of Iranic Soghdian origin and later on when Iranic Soghdians were almost or completely erased as an ethnic group, the claim of Turkic origins and Iranic Persian origins were made.

Read the rest of this entry

Politicization of the background of Nizami Ganjavi: Attempted de-Iranization of a historical Iranian figure by the USSR

By Dr. Ali Doostzadeh

(In memory of Vladimir Minorsky and Nowruzali Mohammadzadeh)

Note 1: The article believes that Nizami Ganjavi despite his Iranic background, culture and contribution to Iranian civilization, and being a product of this civilization is a universal figure. He is also equally a part of the heritage of Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and modern republic of Azerbaijan. These are people that are either Iranian or have been greatly affected by Iranian civilization although at his own time, the concept of nation-state did not exist for any particular modern country to claim Nizami Ganjavi. People of Iranic backgrounds and inheritors of Persian language, civilization and culture have the duty to present this universal figure to the world and keep his language alive. At the same time, this great figure has been politically manipulated by some ethno-minded scholars and USSR ethno-engineers. The article discusses this issue at length where USSR tried (and failed) to detach this great Iranian figure from Iranian civilization.

Note 2: the PDF version of this article reads much better and can be downloaded from here:

http://sites.google.com/site/rakhshesh/articles-related-to-iranian-history

(look for PersianPoetNezamiGanjeiPoliticizationByUSSR.pdf)

Or

http://www.archive.org/details/PoliticizationOfTheBackgroundOfNizamiGanjaviAttemptedDe-iranizationOf

(look for PDF file)

Or

http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-turanism/

(look for .pdf file)

To Cite:

Doostzadeh, Ali. “Politicization of the background of Nizami Ganjavi: Attempted de-Iranization of a historical Iranian figure by the USSR”, June 2008 (Updated 2009).

URL: http://sites.google.com/site/rakhshesh/articles-related-to-iranian-history

The article should also be somewhere in www.archive.org

The goal of this article is to examine the ethnic roots and cultural association of Nezami Ganjavi, one of the greatest Persian poets. It is of course well known that Nezami is a universal figure, but there are two reasons to examine his ethnic and cultural associations. The first reason is that it helps us understand his work better. We provide exposition of rare sources (such as Nozhat al-Majales) which are crucial for the study of the 12th century region of Arran and Sherwan. The other reason to write this article, as explained later in this paper (under the section: politicization of Nizami USSR and its remnants today), is the politicization surrounding Nezami Ganjavi’s ethnic and cultural background by the USSR for the purpose of nation building. Through objective analysis based on Nezami Ganjavi’s work and other primary sources, we analyze the ethnic root and cultural background of Nezami Ganjavi.

The politicization discussion centers on the following points. Despite the fact that Nizami Ganjavi being a Persian poet and all of his poetry is in Persian, is he a cultural icon from the Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization? What is his ethnic background and does it play role in assigning to which civilization he belongs?

And does this question matter at all, given Nizami’s usage of Persian as his cultural vehicle and hence his contribution to Persian culture, language and civilization? Given the fact that Nizami Ganjavi’s poem cannot be translated without losing its multi-layered symbolic meaning and fine details, and given the fact that there is no “pure ethnicity” in the modern Middle East and Caucasia, and given the fact that ethnic divisions were not as prominent as they are today, does the question even matter? The belief of this author is that the Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi belongs to all humanity equally. At the same time, Nizami and his legacy are part of the same culture that he was influenced by and expanded upon. That is other great poets before him, including Ferdowsi, Asadi Tusi, Fakhr ad-in Asad Gorgani and Sanai were his predecessors. Those who speak, read and write Persian, and understand verses of Nizami’s poetry, are those that keep the heritage of Nizami alive today and have a special responsibility to pass down the cultural heritage of great Persian poets like Ferdowsi, Sanai, Nizami, Attar and many others. For example, Pushkin who is the most popular literary figure of Russians is a Russian poet and has served the Russian language and followed the Russian literary tradition. His ethnicity from his father’s side was partially Ethiopian but nevertheless he is part of Russian culture and civilization. We shall get back to this issue in the conclusion of this essay. Thus the question of ethnicity is secondary relative to that of the culture/civilization which a poet arises from and contributes towards. Especially in the middle ages when the concept of nation-state did not exist and one has to concentrate on ethnicity and culture which defines ethnicity.

Despite this simple fact that ethnicity of most 12th century figures (and most people do not know their say 20th ancestor!) cannot be 100% known, we will look into the details of Nizami’s background and we will provide criticism for invalid interpretations, recent forgeries of non-existent verses and the politicization of Nizami by the USSR in order to materialize Stalin’s unfulfilled wish that “Nizami must not be surrendered to Iranian/Persian literature”! Ultimately, Nizami is part and parcel of Persian-Iranian literature and culture, since he lives through this language, all his thoughts are in this language and he is popular due the masterpieces in this language. The question of whether he belongs to Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization is simply answered by anyone who can read his untranslatable work in its original language. The issue of his ethnicity has no bearing on this fact. Yet, we will look at this issue in detail and show that there is nothing to support a Turkic ethnicity for Nizami where-as the corpus of Nizami’s work and other historical and cultural reasons show an Iranic background. That is the issue of claiming Turkic father line for Nizami lacks any solid proof and is used today ethno-nationalists from the republic of Azerbaijan to detach Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization.

It is clearly evident that in terms of cultural orientation, cultural background, legacy, myth, folklore and language, Nizami Ganjavi is part of Iranian civilization and a prominent of Persian cultural history. Thus attempted political annexation of Nizami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization and attribution of Nizami Ganjavi towards Turkic civilization will simply bear no fruit in the long run (since he does not even have a single verse in any other language than Persian) and is a futile political effort which was taken up by USSR for nation-building process and is continued today for unscientific reasons of ethnic nationalism. Nizami Ganjavi survives through more than 30000+ Persian verses and his background is well known to be at least half Iranic and we will show in this article that it was full Iranic. There is nothing to support a Turkic background for Nizami Ganjavi’s father, who Nizami was orphaned from in an early age and was raised by his Kurdish maternal uncle Khwaja Umar.

The reader of course is free to make their own conclusion, but this does not change the simple fact that Nizami inherited the Persian heritage by previous Iranian poets, composed in the Persian language through Iranian culture, is alive through the Persian language, Iranian folklore, mythology and culture and finally it is the Persian speakers of the world who can read him in his own language and appreciate his untranslatable poetry (he is arguably one of the hardest poets to translate because of the multi-layered meaning of many verses, play with language and extensive use of symbolism/imagery pertinent to Persian language and culture). At the same time, we do not deny his shared heritage among countries that have been influenced heavily by Iranian culture and are inheritors of Iranian civilizations and culture. Thus besides highlighting the politicization by the USSR and Stalin, the article will expose many forgeries and invalid arguments to detach Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian background, language and culture.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Basic Nomenclature on ethnic names used in this writing. 6

On the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani 7

What did the USSR mean by Azerbaijani?. 18

Politicization of Nizami by the USSR and its Remnants Today. 19

Two important and recent articles on Politicization of Nezami by Alexandar Otarovich Tamazshvilli 40

Article 1 of Tamazashvilli: From the History of Study of Nezami-ye Ganjavi in the USSR: Around the Anniversary – E.E. Bertels, J.V. Stalin, and others”. 42

Article 2 of Tamazshvilli: Afterword: (Iranology in Russia and Iranologists) 70

Recent Politicization of the Figure of Nizami Ganjavi 77

Nizami’s Mother 90

Nizami and his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar 94

Nizami’s Father 94

Dynasties before and during the era of Nizami 97

Pre-Islamic Iranic dynasties of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan. 97

Post-Islamic period, the Iranian Intermezzo before the Seljuqids. 100

Seljuqid Empire and subsequent local Atabak dynasties. 110

Regional Iranian culture in Arran/Sherwan and Azerbaijan. 122

Arran/Sherwan and Nezami’s designation of Iran/Persia for his land. 122

Iranic languages and people of Azerbaijan. 138

Language of Tabriz as a special case. 143

Maragheh. 149

Another look at the linguistic Turkification of Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan 149

Qatran Tabrizi, rise of Persian-Dari poetry and what a few modern scholars have called “Azerbaijani school”of Persian poetry. 161

What did Nezami call his own style?. 168

Persian poetry images and symbols: Turk, Hindu, Rum, Zang/Habash. 169

Which Turks are described in Persian Poetry?. 206

Unsound arguments made during the USSR era about the ethnicity of Nizami 211

False argument: A false verse created in 1980. 211

Incorrect argument: Nizami uses “Turkish words” so “he must be Turkish”. 214

Incorrect argument: Nizami Praises Seljuq Turks (or Turks) so he was half Turkic 221

Invalid Argument: Nizami wanted to write Turkish but he was forced to write in Persian! 238

The false statement from Stalin. 238

No evidence of Turkic literature in the Caucasus and historical invalidity of the argument due to Shirvanshah not being Persian and not Turkic rulers. 239

Example of politically minded writer today. 246

Criticial editions of the verses in question. 250

Translation and explanation of the introduction of Layli and Majnoon. 257

Misinterpretation of a verse in Haft Paykar 310

Incorrect argument: Nizami and his research into Dari-Persian and Arabic literature means that he was a Turk. 329

Incorrect argument: Nizami praises Alexander, so “he must have been a Turk” 334

Invalid arguments about Idioms, Dedicatees, Eldiguzids, Sunni and Shi’i and other invalid arguments. 338

Alleged Claim of Turkish Idioms. 338

Eldiguzids-Feudal lords (Atabekan) of Azerbaijan. 343

Invalid arguments: Dedicatees of Nezami were Turks so Nezami was a Turk! 349

Invalid Argument: Court poetry and official language was in Persian and that is why Nezami wrote in Persian to get paid. 350

Sunni and Shi’i! 353

Conclusion of invalid arguments. 354

Nizami’s Iranian Background, Culture and Contribution to the Persian Language, Culture and Civilization. 355

Iranian background and some statements from scholars. 356

Nezami’s reference to himself as the Persian Dehqan. 359

Nizami’s reference to his wife and another proof of non-Turkic background for Nizami 363

Other Indicators of Nizami Ganjavi’s Father line. 369

Lack of Turkish names unlike Turkish dynasties and groups. 369

Urban background. 369

Shafiite Madhab. 370

Qom theory. 375

Intermarriage was rare between Western Iranians and Turks due to both religious and ethnic factors. 379

Nizami Ganjavi’s Culture. 381

Viewpoints of Navai and a perspective upon culture. 382

Nizami and the inheritance of Ferdowsi’s throne. 387

Cultural Content of the works of Nizami Ganjavi 394

Nizami Ganjavi’s attachment to Iran. 406

Conclusion. 407

Bibliography. 410

Appendix A: Modern scholastic sources. 415

Corrected information. 428

Appendix B: Response to two arguments with regards to the population of Turks in Caucasus. 431

Do “Turkish” soldiers in Baghdad during the early Abbasid period have anything to do with Caucasus and Azerbaijan. 431

Akbar Kitab al-Tijan: The Arab folklore Kitab al-Tijan and fight between mythical Yemenese Kings and Turanians/Turks in Azerbaijan has no historical validity. On the background of Turanians. 435

Appendix C: Some important neglected sources in the study of Nezami Ganjavi 459

Appendix D: On the etymology of the name Axsartan. 460

Recently, pan-Turkist groups have been exaggerating the number of Turkic speakers and giving false statistics to different sites. They claim that in 2008, there are 20,25, 30, 35,40 45 million Turkic speakers in Iran (depending on which pan-Turkist site one looks at)! Note the total population of Iran was 70 million in 2008. This article is not interested in the political nature of these group and why such politically motivated exaggerations are made, rather than that, we provides a scientific response to their false claims.

Actual Statistics from Iran
What some other sources state:
Conclusion

Actual Statistics from Iran

Unlike what the pan-Turkists claim, there have been statistics done in Iran. The pan-Turkist claim was based on an obscure site named Ethnologue.com (which has been corrected in the 16th edition-2009). The pan-Turkists however use the 15th edition of Ethnologue which has incorrect information. After contacting Ethnologue via E-mail in 2007, this is what the main editor Mr. Ray Gordon wrote to us: “Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not able to locate the original source from 1997. ”
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 (1995 edition)

Another Iranian author (by the pen name Mazdak Bamdadan) has also written to ethnologue.com seeking their explanation on the big change from the 1996 to the 2000 and 2004 editions. 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/

Interestingly enough, Ethnologue which has not done any actual sampling for their 15th edition has also been accused of political meddling and manipulations. We believe the previous editor who had personally communicated must have personally communicated with a pan-Turkist person.

The following information found on the internet about SIL (Ethnologueis publication and endeavor 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.

Whether the information above is correct (allegation of SIL’s connection to various government agencies) is not clear or of concern. What I would like to point out here is that Ethnologuedid not have a source for their statistics of the 14th and 15th edition, and they have never been to Iran. And their editors also responded that they do not know their source and their number is incorrect It would not surprise the writer of this article that some pan-Turkists probably provided Ethnologuewith false numbers which they cannot locate and justify.

In the 2009 edition of Ethnologuehowever, the information has been corrected. We read:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=azb

11,200,000 in Iran (Johnstone and Mandryk 2001), increasing. 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 12,612,660.

This 2009 correction is noteworthy considering that several pan-Turkist activists tried to pressure Ethnologue to keep their inflated numbers. In the 2009 edition of Ethnologue however, the information has been corrected.