ای نام
تو بهترین
سرآغاز
بی نام
تو نامه کی کنم
باز
…
یادگاری
کز آدمیزاد
است
سخن است آن دگر همه باد است
Politicization of the background
of Nizami Ganjavi: Attempted de-Iranization of a historical Iranian figure by
the
By Dr. Ali Doostzadeh
(alidoostzadeh “AT”yahoo.com)
تقدیم
به یاد
ولادمیر
مینورسکی و
نوروز علی محمداف
(In memory of Vladimir Minorsky and Nowruzali Mohammadzadeh)
Special thanks go to Shahrbaraz http://shahrbaraz.blogspot.com for proof-reading and adding useful comments. This article is dedicated to the memory of Novruzali Mammadov and Vladimir Minorsky.
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
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
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?
ای برادر
تو همه
اندیشه ای
مابقی تو
استخوان و
ریشه ای
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
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
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
TABLE OF CONTENT
Basic Nomenclature on ethnic names used in this
writing
On the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani
What did the USSR mean by Azerbaijani?
Politicization of Nizami by the USSR and its
Remnants Today
Two
important and recent articles on Politicization of Nezami by Alexandar
Otarovich Tamazshvilli
Article
2 of Tamazshvilli: Afterword: (Iranology in Russia and Iranologists)
Recent
Politicization of the Figure of Nizami Ganjavi
Nizami and his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar
Dynasties
before and during the era of Nizami
Pre-Islamic
Iranic dynasties of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan
Post-Islamic
period, the Iranian Intermezzo before the Seljuqids
Seljuqid
Empire and subsequent local Atabak dynasties
Regional Iranian culture in Arran/Sherwan and
Azerbaijan
Arran/Sherwan and Nezami’s designation of
Iran/Persia for his land
Iranic
languages and people of Azerbaijan
Language
of Tabriz as a special case
Another
look at the linguistic Turkification of
Azerbaijan, Arran and Sherwan
What did Nezami call his own style?
Persian
poetry images and symbols: Turk, Hindu, Rum, Zang/Habash
Which
Turks are described in Persian Poetry?.
Unsound arguments made during the USSR era about
the ethnicity of Nizami
False
argument: A false verse created in 1980
Incorrect
argument: Nizami uses “Turkish words” so “he must be Turkish”
Incorrect
argument: Nizami Praises Seljuq Turks (or Turks) so he was half Turkic
Invalid
Argument: Nizami wanted to write Turkish but he was forced to write in Persian!
The
false statement from Stalin
Example
of politically minded writer today
Criticial
editions of the verses in question
Translation
and explanation of the introduction of Layli and Majnoon
Misinterpretation
of a verse in Haft Paykar
Incorrect
argument: Nizami praises Alexander, so “he must have been a Turk”
Invalid
arguments about Idioms, Dedicatees,
Eldiguzids, Sunni and Shi’i and other invalid arguments.
Alleged
Claim of Turkish Idioms
Eldiguzids-Feudal
lords (Atabekan) of Azerbaijan
Invalid
arguments: Dedicatees of Nezami were Turks so Nezami was a Turk!
Conclusion
of invalid arguments
Iranian background and some statements from
scholars
Nezami’s reference to himself as the Persian
Dehqan
Nizami’s reference to his wife and another proof
of non-Turkic background for Nizami
Other Indicators of Nizami Ganjavi’s Father line
Lack
of Turkish names unlike Turkish dynasties and groups
Intermarriage was rare between Western Iranians
and Turks due to both religious and ethnic factors
Viewpoints of Navai and a perspective upon culture
Nizami and the inheritance of Ferdowsi’s throne
Cultural
Content of the works of Nizami Ganjavi
Nizami Ganjavi’s attachment to Iran
Appendix A: Modern scholastic sources
Appendix
B: Response to two arguments with regards to the population of Turks in
Caucasus
Appendix C: Some important neglected
sources in the study of Nezami Ganjavi
Appendix D: On the etymology of the
name Axsartan
In this article we use the term Persian, Kurdish,
Azeri, Iranic, Qipchaq, Oghuz and Turkic. It is important to have a clear
definition with this regard.
Kurdish: Speaker of the dialects and languages
considered Kurdish which is the NW Iranian language family.
Persian: Is a native speaker of various Iranian
dialects. This includes Pahlavi dialects as
well as NW Iranic languages identified as Fahlaviyyat
and Azari during the middle ages and also the Parsi-Dari. The term
Persian usually is not as a single linguistic term rather it denotes a speaker
of variety any of the Iranic dialects who have pre-Islamic Sassanid heritage
and Iranian mythology as exemplified by the Shahnameh. We will make a
distinction when we speak of the Dari form of Persian (itself according to
scholars the Khorasani dialect of Middle Persian) rather than what Qatran
Tabrizi, Al-Masudi, Biruni and Nezami have called Persian (Parsi), which is the
general definition.
Iranic: Means a native speaker of the Iranic
languages. This term encompasses both Persian and Kurdish and various other Iranian
speakers including Soghdians, Scythians, Medes and etc. In general it
encompasses the totality of Iranian civilization and languages as well those
with Iranian heritages.
Oghuz: Speaker of Oghuz dialects, mainly the
western Turkic languages.
Qipchaq: Speakers of Qipchaq or similar eastern
Turkic languages.
Turkic: Like Iranic, it denotes the speakers of
Turkic languages. In Persian literature, the Mongols have also been considered
as Turks since the bulk of the troops and tribes of the Mongol federation were
of Turkic rather than Mongolic origin. Also the term Tatar has been used in
this fashion. Thus Turkic encompasses the totality of various Turkic cultures,
language and civilizations and the Altaic people. It should be noted that however in early
Islamic era, non-Altaic speakers such as Soghdians, Alans and Avesta Turanians
etc. have also been lumped with Turks in some sources due to geographical
reasons. See Appendix B and C of this
article for some observations with this regard.
Arabic: Native Arab speaker.
Armenian: Native Armenian speaker.
Georgian/Caucasian: Speaker of one of the
languages that has been loosely classified as Caucasian languages by linguists
of today.
The name
Professor Vladimir Minorsky writes:
“Called in Middle Persian Aturpatakan, older new-Persian
Adharbadhagan, Adharbayagan, at present Azarbaydj̲an,
Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη,
Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων,
Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Adhorbayg̲han, the province was called
after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of
Alexander’s invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved
his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of
later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muqaffa, in Yaqūt, i, 172, and al-Maqdisi, 375:
Adharbadh b. Biwarasf).
(Minorsky, V. “Adharbaydjan (Azarbaydjan) .”Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online.)
Professor K. Shippmann states:
“In the Achaemenid period
(Encyclopedia
Iranica, “
The word Azari/Azeri has been used in the early Islamic period for a Persian related Iranian dialect. Naturally the name of the dialect was derived from the name of the region itself. We will make mention of this Iranic dialect later in the article.
But it is important to note that the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani
has been used no earlier than the late 19th century or the early 20th century to designate Turkic speaking Shi’i
Muslims(Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, “Turko-Tatars”)(Roy,
Oliver. “The new
The origin of Turkic speaking Azeris has been
described as:
1) Iranic
2) Turkic
3) Symbiosis of Iranic and
Turkic
4) Symbiosis of Iranic, Turkish
and Caucasian peoples
According to the multi-volume book
“History of the East” (“Transcaucasia in XI-XV centuries” in Rostislav Borisovich Rybakov (editor), History of the East. 6 volumes. v. 2. “East during the Middle Ages: Chapter
V., 2002. – ISBN 5-02-017711-3. http://gumilevica.kulichki.com/HE2/he2510.htm )
The formation of a distinct Turkic speaking groups who speak the language called “Azerbaijani-Turkic”(note in Iran it is called Torki and the pre-fix “Azerbaijani” to Turkic is also recent) language occurred between 15th-16th century.
"Современная
наука
относит
завершение сложения
турецкой
народности к
концу XV в. Очевидно,
так же
следует
датировать и
сложение
азербайджанского
этноса"
Translation:
"Modern science considers the completion of addition
of the Turkish nation by the end of XV
century. Obviously, the same should be
dated and addition of the Azerbaijani ethnic group. "
The book also states that:
“
В XIV-XV вв. с
началом
формирования
азербайджанского
тюрко-язычного
этноса
возникает и его
культура.
Первоначально
она не имела
своих
стабильных
центров
(вспомним,
что один из
ее ранних
представителей,
Несими, погиб
в Сирии), и ее
довольно
трудно для
данного времени
отделить от
османской
(турецкой) культуры.
Даже
этническая
граница
между турками
и
азербайджанцами
установилась
только в XVI в., да
и тогда она
еще
окончательно
не определилась.
Тем не менее
в XV в.
формируются
два центра
азербайджанской
культуры -
Южный Азербайджан
и Карабах
(равнинный).
Окончательно
они
сложились
уже позже, в XVI-XVIII
вв.
Говоря
о
возникновении
азербайджанской
культуры
именно в XIV-XV вв.,
следует иметь
в виду прежде
всего
литературу и
другие части
культуры,
органически
связанные с языком.
Что касается
материальной
культуры, то
она
оставалась
традиционной
и после тюркизации
местного
населения.
Впрочем, наличие
мощного
пласта
иранцев,
принявших участие
в
формировании
азербайджанского
этноса,
наложило
свой
отпечаток
прежде всего
на лексику
азербайджанского
языка, в котором
огромное
число
иранских и
арабских
слов.
Последние
вошли и в
азербайджанский,
и в турецкий
язык главным
образом
через
иранское
посредство.”
Translation:
“
In the XIV-XV cc., as the Azerbaijani
Turkic-language ethnos was beginning to form, arose its culture, as well. At
first it had no stable centers of its own (recall that one of its early
representatives, Nesimi, met his death in Syria) and it is rather difficult at
that time to separate from the Osman (Turkish) culture. Even the ethnic boundary between the Turks
and the Azerbaijanis stabilized only in the XVI c., and even then it was not
quite defined yet. Nevertheless, in the XV c., two centers of the Azerbaijani
culture are forming: the South Azerbaijan and (lowland) Karabakh. They took
final shape later, in the XVI-XVIII cc.
Speaking of the Azerbaijan culture
originating at that time, in the XIV-XV cc., one must bear in mind, first of
all, literature and other parts of culture organically connected with the
language. As for the material culture, it
remained traditional even after the Turkicization of the local population.
However, the presence of a massive layer of Iranians that took part in the
formation of the Azerbaijani ethnos, have imposed its imprint, primarily on the
lexicon of the Azerbaijani language which contains a great number of Iranian
and Arabic words. The latter entered both the Azerbaijani and the Turkish
language mainly through the Iranian intermediary. Having become independent,
the Azerbaijani culture retained close connections with the Iranian and Arab
cultures. They were reinforced by common religion and common cultural-historical
traditions.”
Thus neither the ethnonym nor ethnic group nor
language by the name Azerbaijani-Turk has been recorded in the 12th
century. Since this ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani
was not in use during the time of Nizami to refer to any dialect and group of
Turkic speaking people, then it is not used in this work. Also one
cannot necessarily talk of an Azerbaijani Turkic group in the 12th
century as noted by the sources above (we will show Azerbaijan was far from
Turkified by the 12th century using primary sources). The fact remains that the ethnonym Azeri/Azerbaijani
was not in use at the time of Nezami, although Azerbaijanis have a thick layer
of Iranian culture as well. Thus to say Nezami was an Azerbaijani poet does not
correspond to any historical fact, since the term Azerbaijani was not used for
an ethnic group (it was a geographical location of NW Iran) and the Azerbaijani
Turkic ethnic group was not formed back then.
He did not write in Azerbaijani-Turkish language (no one from 1140-1209
has written in that language from the Caucasus) and neither was the ethnic
designation Azerbaijani used during or before his time. The formation/ethno genesis of ethnic
Azerbaijanis as a symbiosis and blending of Iranic, Turkic and Caucasian
elements comes in a much later. Also the land of Nezami Ganjavi, where he might
have been born (most likely Ganja according to modern scholars and a minority
of manuscripts have said Qom in central Persia or some scholars have said his
ancestry from his father-side was in Tafresh), was really called Arran rather
than Azerbaijan by most historical/geographical sources at that time. Indeed
Nizami uses
Some might make a counter-argument that they want
to use the term Oghuz Turk or Turkic in general instead of Azeri. In
their opinions, modern Azerbaijanis are Oghuz Turks (also called Tatars by
Russians). The difference between eastern Turkic (Qipchaq) and Western Turkic
Oghuz had become significant at the time of Nizami. Thus they might even reduce
it to Western Turkic. In any case, “Turk” is a very generic term as an ethnic
indicator: Would it have suggested “Azeri Turkish” in Nezami’s day, or
was there even yet such a language branched out from the common Oghuz?
Definitely not - most likely it would suggest the Seljuq tribesmen, whom I
believe were Oghuz, but around the same time, it could also refer to Khatai
Turkic, or Uighur, Chaghatay, Turkoman, Mongol (Mongols and Turks being used
interchangeably in Persian literature around the time of the Mongol invasion), Kipchaks,
Chinese, and Tibetans(being identified with Turks in some Islamic literature
like Qabusnama), Iranic Sogdians (they have been identified with Turks in some
Arabic literature due to being neighbors of Turks) etc.? We have no exact data
from those days, but we may assume that the various Turkic speakers, to the
extent that they held a shared sense of identity, would do so on the basis of a
similar language and nomadic lifestyles although tribal identifications would
overtake any sort of shared cultural identity between these groups.
Here are what some scholars and authorities state
on the ethno genesis of modern Azerbaijanis.
Some have stated that an Azerbaijani ethnic group was formed by the XIII
centuries, however more specialized sources put it around the Safavid era
XVI. We believe the fact that Safina
Tabrizi and Nozhat al-Majales (to be discussed later) show major urban centers
of Arran, Sherwan and Azerbaijan to have been Iranic even in the Ilkhanid era
are an elegant proof that the latter date of XVI is when Azerbaijan and Eastern
Transcaucasia was decisively Turkified.
Professor Richard Frye states:
The Turkish speakers of
(Frye, Richard Nelson, “Peoples of
For example Professor Tadsuez Swietchowski states:
What is now the
(Swietochowski,
Tadeusz. “
“The mass of the Oghuz Turkic tribes who crossed the Amu
Darya towards the west left the Iranian plateau, which remained Persian, and
established themselves more to the west, in
(Olivier
Although,
we do not believe the Oghuz nomads were Shi’ites when they entered
Professor Peter Golden has written one the most comprehensive book on Turkic people called An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Peter B. Golden. Otto Harrasowitz, 1992). Professor Golden confirms that the Medes were Iranians and Iranian languages like Talyshi/Tati speakers being assimilated into Turkish speakers. Considering the Turkic penetration in Caucasian Azerbaijan and the Turkification of large parts of North Western Persia, Professor Golden states in pg 386 of his book:
Turkic penetration probably began in the Hunnic era and its
aftermath. Steady pressure from Turkic nomads was typical of the Khazar era,
although there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements. These
most certainly occurred with the arrival of the Oguz in the 11th century. The
Turkicization of much of Azarbayjan, according to Soviet scholars, was
completed largely during the Ilxanid period if not by late Seljuk times.
It should be noted that Professor Golden on pg 12 of the same book states:
“Turkic population of today shows extraordinary physical
diversity, certainly much greater than that of any group of Altaic language.
The original Turkish physical type, if we can really posit such, for it should
be borne in mind that this mobile population was intermixing with its neighbors
at a very stage, was probably of the Mongloid type(in all likelihood in its
South Siberian variant). With may deduce this from the fact that populations in
previously Europoid areas of Iranian speech begin to show Mongoloid influences
coincidental with the appearances of Turkic people. The physical transformation
of these Turkicizing peoples, however, illustrated by the population of
We shall affirm this fact by showing the description of Turks in classical Persian literature in another section. Indeed, this physical description, as described by countless poets including Nizami was Mongloid rather than Caucasoid and this point to the Turkification of the mainly Caucasoid-featured population by the Mongolid-featured Altaic groups.
According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:
“Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular
symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic
contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined. The few
researches undertaken (Planhol, 1960) demonstrate the indisputable predominance
of Iranian tradition in agricultural techniques (irrigation, rotation systems,
terraced cultivation) and in several settlement traits (winter troglodytism of
people and livestock, evident in the widespread underground stables). The large
villages of Iranian peasants in the irrigated valleys have worked as points for
crystallization of the newcomers even in the course of linguistic transformation;
these places have preserved their sites and transmitted their knowledge. The
toponyms, with more than half of the place names of Iranian origin in some
areas, such as the Sahand, a huge volcanic massif south of Tabriz, or the Qara
Dagh, near the border (Planhol, 1966, p. 305; Bazin, 1982, p. 28) bears witness
to this continuity. The language itself provides eloquent proof. Azeri, not
unlike Uzbek (see above), lost the vocal harmony typical of Turkish languages.
It is a Turkish language learned and spoken by Iranian peasants.”
(X.
Planhol, Encyclopedia Iranica, “Iran: Lands of Iran”)
Professor Gernot Windfuhr in the article: Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes, in Hommages et Opera Minora, Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. 2., Acta Iranica 5. Tehran-Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi, 457-472. On pg 468, he writes:
One may add that the overlay of a strong superstate by a
dialect from the eastern parts of
It
is important to note that the Oghuz Turks who Turkified
“... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes
the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language.
These are the Turks who are most distant from Kashghari’s idealized homeland
and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true
Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his
dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences
so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it.
...”
N. Light further explains:
“... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from
that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use
words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more
mixed with Persian ...”
The actual Arabic statement of Kashghari is
follows:
«الغزیة
لما اختلطت
بلفرس نسیت
کثیراً من لغت
الترک و
استعملت
الفارسیه
مکانها ج.ا،
شماره 73)
Translation:
The Ghuzz due having mixed with
Persians (Iranians/Fars) have forgotten many Turkic words and use Persian words
instead.
Taymas, Abdullah Battal. “Divan Lagait – Turk
Tercumesi”, Turkiyat Mecmuasi, Cilt (XI),
There are others opinions but we believe that a
symbiosis between Iranian and Turkic elements (where the Oghuz nomads
themselves before entering
Since the term Azeri/Azerbaijani as an
ethnic term for the speakers of Turkic languages in
As noted by Oliver Roy:
“The
concept of Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920. Up until
that point Azerbaijan had been a purely geographical area. Before 1924,
the Russians called Azeri Tatars "Turk"
or "Muslims".(Roy, Oliver.
“The new
According to Prof. Tadeusz Swietochowski: "Azerbaijani" was coined in the 1930s to refer to the inhabitants of the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan.(Azerbaijan Seven Years of Conflict Nagorno-Karabagh – Human Rights Watch / Helsinki– December 1994 by Human Rights Watch).
Overall then, the term Azeri/Azerbaijani was
overwhelmingly and primarily used as a geographical area before 1930 and also
designates inhabitants of the newly formed state of Azerbaijan regardless of
their ethnicity (Talysh, Tat, Azeris, Lezgins, Kurds, Armenians). So words like “Azerbaijan poet” or
“Azerbaijani poet” might have been used a geographical designation for some
poets of the area by scholars, but they did not have any sort of ethnic meaning
and were purely geographical. Just like
Khorasani poets or Khwarizmi Poet or Esfahani Poet or Shirazi poet..and etc is
geographical. Some authors also
distinguish between “Azerbaijani” and “Azeri”.
“Azerbaijani” means citizen of the republic of Azerbaijan or from the
land of Azerbaijan where-as “Azeri” means the native speaker of Azeri Turkic.
In any event, we shall show from Nizami and the
writing of other Persian poets, the physical features of Turk are clearly
described as Mongloid and do not resemble those of the Caucasoid Anatolian and
Azerbaijani Turkic speakers This
alongside recent genetic evidence indicates that a language replacement via
elite dominance is a likely explanation of the Turkification of Anatolia,
It should be noted that Nezami has specifically himself mentioned the area where he lived as part of the “Persian realm” which is a cultural and geographical term. The reader can also see the section: Regional Iranian Culture and Nezami’s designation of Iran/Persian for his land of this article for further usage of these terms.
Usage of Azerbaijani to describe Nezami based on
geography is also not valid at Nizami’s time (although he was born in the
territory that is called Azerbaijan today), since the territory around Ganja
usually was primarily called Arran rather than
An
example of erroneously using this term and anachronism is for example given by
this quote by a noted scholar:"In the fifteenth century a native
Azeri state of Shirvanshahs flourished north of the Araxes." (Tadeusz
Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition,
Columbia University, 1995, p. 2.)
Yet the Shirvanshah called their territory Shirwan, not Azerbaijan. Also the Shirwanshah were not ethnically Turkic, but were a mixture of Iranians and Arabs and culturally they were Persians. And also “Azeri” denotes the native Turkic speaker where-as Azerbaijani would at least have geographical meaning.
This sort of wrong and anachronistic application of geographical name has unfortunately occurred many times and has been used for various poets and scientific figures.
An inquirer asked one academic writer who used this term:
In
the book “Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-century Iran” on page 65 you wrote “The
renowned Azerbaijani poet, Nizami of…”.
What do you mean with “Azerbaijani poet Nizami”? Ethnic, cultural, geographical
or other characteristic?
The Author of the book who used the term responded back:
geographical. The whole subject of nationalities is
fraught with controversy since in mediaeval times nation-states did not exist
people could not so easily be labeled. Often people were defined by their city,
e.g. Samarqandi, Balkhi, though often by the region, Rumi. Nizami has been
claimed by the modern state of Azerbaijan though he continues to be considered
a Persian poet and for the student seeking further information Azerbaijan could
be a starting point for their research. You should not read too much into such
labels. George Lane
Despite this, we should note that Ganja at that time was part of Arran and the area was not called Azerbaijan. So indeed this is a wrong and anachronistic application of the geographical conventions. At the same time, it illustrates that by this convention, is being used as a modern geographical location(Azeri, Azerbaijani) and not necessarily culture, ethnicity, language and heritage.
Also as the author who responded back noted, the concept of nation-state did not exist back then. This is an important point which some people have not unfortunately grasped. So for example to speak of Iranian or Turkic or Azeri or Arab or Armenian or Georgian citizenship or nationality(based on citizenship rather than culture/ethnicity) at that era does not make sense since the ethnicity of the ruler had no implication on the citizenship (e.g. Seljuqs controlled Iran but overwhelming majority of the inhabitants were neither Turks or Seljuqians and no one identified their identity through a state).
So
for example the Buyids were an “Iranian State”(meaning an Iranic-speaking
ruling elite controlled a state) but they controlled areas (such as Iraq) that
had a substantial non-Iranian population.
Those non-Iranian population will not be considered Iranians ethnically
or culturally just because the Buyids were Iranian rulers(which some might call
“Iranian State”). The same is
true with Seljuqs or the semi-autonomous Atabeks who had established a state with
Turkic ruling elite, but their main population was non-Turkic and so the
identity of their inhabitants should not be erroneously described as the
citizenship/nationality(based on state not ethnicity/language)/nation-state
concepts that did not exist at that time.
As per the term Azari, there was an ancient
Azari-Fahlavi language or group of dialects spoken in Iranian-Azerbaijan
(Atrapatakan) (remnants of it being the Tati in
“Azeri material culture, a result of this multi-secular
symbiosis, is thus a subtle combination of indigenous elements and nomadic
contributions, but the ratio between them is remains to be determined.”
Thus
just like ancient Egyptians spoke ancient Egyptian, but modern Egyptians speak
Arabic, it does not mean that ancient Egyptians are not connected to modern
Egyptians. Same with modern Turks of
Anatolia who also share in the pre-Turkic Greek civilization. Although it should be mentioned that there are Iranian
speakers in some of these countries although many of them have become
Turcophones gradually in the last several hundred years and rapidly in last
century. The difference with Iranian
cultural items that are claimed by modern Turkic speaking countries (Biruni,
Rudaki, and Avicenna in Uzbekistan; Nizami, Zoroaster, Zoroastrianism,
Bahmanyar.. in the Republic of Azerbaijan; and Abu Said Abul Khair in
Turkmenistan) is that there are also countries that speak Iranian languages and
Persian in particular, thus they rightfully also claim to be inheritors of
these Iranian cultural items, since the culture has continued. Especially for such a poet as Nizami Ganjavi,
who only wrote in Persian and contributed to the Persian culture and language,
expanded Persian myths and legends and finally came from an Iranian
background. In the end, these countries
(both Iranian speaking and Turkic speaking) have a shared heritage due to the
fact that some of these Turkic countries had a linguistic shift from Iranian languages
to Turkish languages due to migration of Turkic nomads and the Turkification of
some of the lands. The question of
whether Nizami belongs to Iranian civilization or Turkic civilization is
something we will discuss in this article. We also note that modern nationalism
especially that of pan-Turkism which has also influenced Caucasia, was a
reactionary movement spawning out of the decay and disintegration of the
Since the ethnonym Azerbaijani for an ethnic group
was new, the USSR era did not provide a clear definition. For example some considered Azerbaijanis to
be Medes, others as Turks and others as Caucasian Albanians. Then there was theories combining some or all
of these. This is another reason why
calling Nezami Ganjavi as “Azerbaijani” in the politicized USSR sources lacks
clarity. Do they mean Medes(and the
descendant of Iranic Medes like Talysh, Kurds?), or Caucasian Albanians or
Turks and etc.
For example Bolukbashi mentions:
“During the
Stalin era, Azeri historians were forced to link Azeri history to Persian
Medes, whose appearance in Iran and the southern Caucasus dates back to the
ninth century BC. In the post-Stalin
era, this theory gave away to one which linked the Azeris’ origin to the
Atropathenes and Caucasian Albania. By
the early 1970s, however, the Turkic role in Azeri history had begun to be
admitted, so that until the Gorbachev era the Azerbaijani historiography based
Azeri identity on a combination of the Medes, the Atropathenes, the Albanians
and the Turkic settlers, a formula which helped prevent the emergence of an all-Turkic
historiography”
(Susha Bolukbashi, ‘Nation building in Azerbaijan: The Soviet Legacy and the Impact of the Karabakh Conflict’ in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.)
Arya Wasserman notes:
“The growing interest in the nationalities problem and the
rising influence of the ideology of Turkism revived the old controversy over
the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people, that is between adherents of the
concept of the decisive Turkic role and supporters of the pro-Iranian
theory. In the mid 1970s, the republican
authorities headed by the First Secretary Heydar Aliev had resolved the debate
by ruling in favour of the Iranian concept.
Now, for the first time monographs dedicated of this problem were
published. The purely scientific
problem of ethnogenesis became a regular theme in newspapers. The authors of some articles used this
discussion to express their opposition to the policy of Turkicization. Politicians also intervened in the
dispute. The President’s adviser on
nationalities, Idaiat Orujev, supported the concept according to which
Azerbaijan was the homeland of Oguz Turks, which obviously meant that he was
inclined to accept the theory of the Turkic origins of the Azerbaijani
people.
Opponents of the proto-Turkic conceptions of ethnogenesis of
the Azerbaijani people insist that the Kurds, Talysh, Lakhij and other
Persian-speaking peoples are ethnic Azerbaijanis, who had a part from ancient
times in the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people, and that all of them share
the same Caspian racial type, to which no other Turkic-speaking peoples, not
even the Turks themselves, belong to”
(Aryeh Wasserman, “A Year of Rule by the Popular Front of Azerbaijan” in Yaacov Roi, “Muslim Eurasia”, Routeldge, 1995. pp 150-152.)
Thus the usage of “Azerbaijani” as an ethnic term was recent and doing the USSR era, the term did not necessarily mean Turcophone people. Now, today the designation “Azeri” and “Azerbaijani” are further confused because Azerbaijani has been used as a geographical term since 1918 for all inhabitants of Eastern Southern Caucasus (corresponding to the modern republic of Azerbaijan) where as “Azeri” denotes the Oghuz Azerbaijani-Turkic speaker of that area. But for the USSR, it seems to have meant a combination of Turks, Iranians and Caucasian Albanians who became Turcophones. Prior to that, the term was mainly geographical and it could be possible some authors after 1918 have referred to Nezami as an Azerbaijani/Azerbaijanian poet noting that he lived most if not all of his life in Ganja. However, such an ethnic formation had not yet occurred during the time of Nezami Ganjavi as noted. Thus the article will not use anachronistic terms and will stick with terms such as Persian, Iranic, Turkic, Oghuz, Kurds and etc.
The
reason to write this article is due to the fact that the
One of these false verses is as follows:
پدر بر پدر مر
مرا ترک بود
به فرزانگی
هر یکی گرگ
بود
Translation:
“Father
upon father of mine were all Turks,
In wisdom each one of them was a wolf”!
The problems with the above verse is that not only it is not found in any extant manuscript of Nizami Ganjavi’s work, but also the words “Tork/Turk” do not rhyme with the words “Gorg/Gurg”(Wolf). For more on the history of the falsification of this verse which was traced back to 1980 in Azerbaijan SSR see:
جلال
متینی، «سندی
معتبر بودن بر
در ترک بودن نظامی
گنجوی!»،
ایرانشناسی،
سال 4, 1371.
Matini, J. “A solid proof on the Turkic roots of
Nizami Ganjavi?!”, Iranshenasi, Volume 4, 1371 (1992-1993).
Other times, poetry from Turkic language poets are ascribed to Nizami Ganjavi. Since Nizami Ganjavi wrote all his works in Persian, this has led to some nationalist pan-Turkist groups making such unfounded claims. For example, a news report appeared where two pan-Turkist nationalists have claimed that they have found the Divan of Nizami Ganjavi in Turkish.
Here is a link for such a news item:
http://www.apa.az/en/news.php?id=28178
Nizami Ganjavi’s divan
in Turkish published in
[08 Jun 2007 13:17]
Divan of Nizami
Ganjavi in Turkish was found in Khedivial library of
Eloglu said that he is analyzing Nizami Ganjavi’s divan in Turkish.
He added that the divan was found by Iranian researcher of Azerbaijani origin
Seid Nefisi 40 years ago in Khedivial library but for some reasons the
scientist did not analyze the book.
Poetess from Maraga Fekhri Vahizeden living in
“Historical points and personalities noted in the works were Nizami
Ganjavi’s contemporaries,”he said. He noted that 213 couplets in the divan were
proved to be written by Nizami Ganjavi.
Eloglu has already published these poems in
This
Turkish Diwan was found to be from a poet named Nizami Qunavi (d. 1469 or 1473)
from the
محمدعلی
کریمزاده
تبریزی،
«دیوان ترکی
نظامی
گنجوی!»،
ایرانشناسی،
سال هفدهم،
شماره-ی سوم، 1384.
See:
Tabrizi, Mohammad Ali Karim Zadeh. “The (supposed) Turkish Diwan of Nizami Ganjavi!”, Iranshenasi, Seventeenth year, Volume 3, 2005.
See also:
(Osman G. Oguzdenli, “Nezami Qunavi” in Encylopedia Iranica)
We
will later show that at the time of Nizami Ganjavi, not a single verse of
Turkish has ever been written from the area and essentially there is no proof
that a Turkish literary tradition existed in the Caucasia (
False arguments created by the USSR, like “Nizami was forced to write Persian for the Shirvanshah”, based on misinterpretation of verses shall also be dealt with in this article.
Another
nationalistic writer who has equated Azeris with Turks (unlike what we wrote)
has written: “Although
Nizami did not produce his work in Azeri language, his narratives are,
nonetheless, rooted in Azeri culture and tradition.”
The reader is surprised by the above writer since he must think that the Sassanid heritage (like the stories of Khusraw o Shirin, Haft Paykar) or the Irano-Islamic rendition of Alexander (Eskandarnama) or the Persianized story (by Nizami) of Layli o Majnoon have their roots in Turkic cultures and tradition. Such nationalistic outbursts are common from ethnic nationalistic scholars but they lack any scientific basis.
So what is the root of all these modern forgeries? Why is there a need to retroactively Turkify Nizami Ganjavi by attributing to him works that are not his? What is the purpose of creating false verses within the last 30 years or so in order to attribute Grey Wolf myths to Nizami Ganjavi? What is the origin of the false argument that “Nizami was forced to write in Persian” or Nizami was “a victim of Persian Chauvinism”!?
We
must seek the root of all these forgeries by going back to the nation-building
period of the
The Encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Efron,
published between 1890-1906 (before the
“Nizamy (Sheikh Nizamoddin Abu-Mohemmed
Ilyas ibn-Yusof) is the best romantic Persian poet (1141-1203), born in Cumsky
(
За
свою поэму
“Хосров и
Ширина”(1180),
посвященную
азербайджанским
атабекам, Н.
был призван ко
двору, но
очень скоро
удалился от
его суеты и
вел жизнь
аскетическую.”
http://be.sci-lib.com/article071752.html
It is worthy to check what the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 with this regard. Under Nizami, it is written:
“Nizam-uddin Abu Mohammad Ilyas bin Yusuf, Persian Poet, was
born 535 A.H. (1141 A.D.”
We
note that before the
So
what did occur during the
سرگی
آقاجانیان.،
«پنجاهمین
سالگرد یک
تحریف
تاریخی، به
مناسبت هشتصد
و پنجاهمین سالگرد
تولد نظامی»،
ایران شناسی،
سال 4، شمارۀ
یک (بهار 1371).
Sergei Aghajanian, “The fiftieth anniversary of
a historical distortion: On the occasion of the 850th anniversary of
the birth of Nizami”, Iranshenasi, 4th year, Volume 1,
1992-1993.
According
to Aghajanian, around 1930 or so, Nizami Ganjavi’s heritage was changed to
Azerbaijani from Persian and the
Interestingly enough, the writer of the 1897 (Brockhaus and Efron) wrote “Persian and its literature” in 1900 and also its third edition in 1912 all mentioning Nizami as Persian poet. But because of the political climate in 1939(see below and the Appendix), he wrote a monograph “Nizami and his contemporaries” claiming:
“"We should fully realize and accept Azerbaijani Nizami,
of course, was true Azerbaijani poet,
and Heroes" Leila and Majnun " is not the Arabs from an Arab
legend, but Turkic romantic heroes.””
Such baseless claims like Lili o majnoon was a Turkic legend! Or Nizami was Azerbaijani poet (rather than Persian poet) were made during the political atmosphere of 1930s and onward.
In
the book Russia and her Colonies, Walter Kolarz exposes the
“Whilst trying to link Azerbaidzhani culture as closely as
possible with Russian culture, the Soviet regime is equally eager to deny the
existence of close cultural ties between Azerbaidzhan and
The attempt to ‘annex’ an important part of Persian
literature and to transform it into ‘Azerbaidzhani literature’ can be best
exemplified by the way in which the memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141-1203)
is exploited in the
Stalin himself intervened in the dispute over Nizami and gave an authoritative verdict on the matter. In a talk with the Ukrainian writer, Mikola Bazhan, Stalin referred to Nizami as ‘the great poet of our brotherly Azerbaidzhani people’ who must not be surrendered to Iranian literature, despite having written most of his poems in Persian [Note by the author of the present article: It should be noted that not a single verse of Turkish was ever written by Nizami and his mother was Kurdish and his works point to a father of Iranic background]. Stalin even quoted to Bazhan a passage from Nizami where the poet said that he was forced to use the Persian language because he was not allowed to talk to the people in their native tongue [Note by the writer of this present article: Shirvanshahs were not Turkic speaking and Nizami wrote his introduction after completing the story of the Layli and Majnoon. The verse in question has to do with Ferdowsi and Mahmud, and Nizami through the mouth of Shirvanshah’s versifies that we are not unfaithful like Turks, so we need eloquent speech not low speech. This issue has been expanded upon by the Iranian writer Abbas Zarin Khoi and this invalid claim will be examined in detail later]. (48)
Thus in Stalin’s view Nizami is but a victim of Persian
centralism and of a denationalization policy directed against the ancestors of
the Azerbaidzhani Turks. Nizami is not a Persian poet, but a historical
witness of Persian oppression of ‘national minorities’. It is by no means surprising
that Stalin should take this line or that he should attach the greatest
importance to everything that would undermine
THE OTHER AZERBAIDZHAN
Even before the Second World War the Soviet authorities of
The ‘awakening’of the Azerbaidzhani Turks came earlier than
the Soviet sociologists could have foreseen in 1930, and was a direct consequence
of the Russian military occupation of
In 1946, when the Soviet troops left Northern Persia, the
Persian Government only too easily swept away the regime set up by pro-communist
Azerbaidzhani autonomists in
(Walter
Kolarz.,
Indeed Stalin in his interview in April of 1939 expressed the opinion as noted by Kolarz:
“Comrade Stalin in an interview with the writers of
Azerbaijan (SSR) was talking about Nizami Ganjavi and brought some verses from
him in order to reject the fact that this poet of our brothers (he means the
Azerbaijan SSR) is part of Iranian/Persian literature, just due to the fact
that he has written most of his work in
Persian”(Kolarz, Aghajanian)
We
note the amazing forgery here. Nizami Ganjavi does not have one verse of
Turkish. There is not a single non-Persian verse from Nizami Ganjavi. Yet
Stalin claims that Nizami Ganjavi was a victim of Persian oppression and only “most
of his work” (in reality all of his work) is in Persian. We note that the first verse in classical
Azerbaijani Turkish was written much later than Nizami’s passing away. It is
amazing that Nizami Ganjavi is not part of Persian literature according to the
chief
As Walter Kolarz has correctly noted:
The
attempt to ‘annex’ an important part of Persian literature and to transform it
into ‘Azerbaidzhani literature’can be best exemplified by the way in which the
memory of the great Persian poet Nizami (1141-1203) is exploited in the
We may quote the modern Turkic nationalist newspaper Ayna which regularly uses the term Persian Chauvinists(common amongst pan-turkist nationalists) to describe Iranians. The newspaper Ayna states:
“Ayna, Baku
10 Aug 04Now, let us have a brief look at Khatami's mistake. While on a trip to
Ganca, he wrote down his words and wishes in the visitors' book at the
world's renowned thinker Nizami Gancavi's mausoleum. There he called
Nizami a poet of "Persian literature". We have always boasted our
hospitality. This national value has always been a feature distinguishing
Azerbaijani Turks from others. Our ills
have often resulted from this feature. With his remarks Khatami proved
that he was a representative of the chauvinist Persian ideology masked
under the cover of democracy.”
Yet no one dispute Nizami wrote in Persian and is part of Persian literature. Even Nizami himself says he is composing Persian literature and nowhere does he use the term Turkish literature or any other ethno-linguistic term that would imply it is not Persian literature. For example, when he was inspired and advised by the Prophet Khezr, Nizami who calls the Persian language as Dorr-i-Dari (a term that was used at least since the time of Nasir Khusraw) states in his Sharafnama:
چو در من گرفت
آن نصیحتگری
زبان برگشادم
به دّر دری
When all those advices were
accepted by me
I started composing in the Persian
Pearl (Dorr-i-Dari)
Or again for example in the Sharafnama he states:
نظامی که
نظم دری کار
اوست
دری نظم
کردن سزاوار
اوست
Nizami whose endeavor is producing
Persian poetry (Nazm-e-Dari)
Versification of Persian(Dari
Nazm Kardan) poetry is what suits him
Nizami never says I have composed in “Turkish” or “Azerbaijani literature”(a term that did not exist back then and Azerbaijan at that time would be part of the geographical region of Iran and its people would not be Turcophones at that time). He clearly states Nazm-e-Dari (Persian poetry). Parsi-i-Dari(term used by Ferdowsi) being the Khurasani Persian. Nezami uses Parsi and Dari sometimes interchangeably but other times, like Qatran Tabrizi, local dialects were also called Parsi and this is distinguished within its own context.
Professor. Gilbert Lazard, a famous Iranologist and also the writer of Persian grammar states: "The language known as New Persian, which usually called at this period by the name of Dari or Parsi-Dari,can be classified linguistically as a continuation of Middle Persian, the official religious and literary language of Sassanian Iran, itself a continuation of Old Persian, the language of the Achaemenids. Unlike the other languages and dialects, ancient and modern, of the Iranian group such as Avestan, Parthian, Soghdian, Kurdish, Pashto, etc., Old Middle and New Persian represent one and the same language at three states of its history. It had its origin in Fars (the true Persian country from the historical point of view and is differentiated by dialectical features, still easily recognizable from the dialect prevailing in north-western and eastern Iran".(Lazard, Gilbert 1975, “The Rise of the New Persian Language” in Frye, R. N., The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, pp. 595-632, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Unfortunately, few people (some politically minded and some ignorant) who cannot read Persian have started to call Nizami Ganjavi’s poetry as something else rather than Persian literature.
Professor
Yuri Slezkine has given a more general description of that era of
….After the mid-1930s students, writers, and shock-workers
could be formally ranked - and so could nationalities. Second, if the
legitimacy of an ethnic community depended on the government’s grant of
territory, then the withdrawal of that grant would automatically “denationalize”
that community (though not necessarily its individual passport-carrying
members!). This was crucial because by the second half of the decade the
government had obviously decided that presiding over 192 languages and
potentially 192 bureaucracies was not a very good idea after all. The
production of textbooks, teachers and indeed students could not keep up with
formal “nationalization,”the fully bureaucratized command economy and the newly
centralized education system required manageable and streamlined communication
channels, and the self-consciously Russian “promotees”who filled the top jobs
in Moscow after the Great Terror were probably sympathetic to complaints of
anti-Russian discrimination (they themselves were beneficiaries of dass-based quotas).
By the end of the decade most ethnically defined Soviets, villages, districts
and other small units had been disbanded, some autonomous republics forgotten
and most “national minority’’schools and institutions closed down.
However - and this is the most important “however”of this
essay -the ethnic groups that already had their own republics and their own
extensive bureaucracies were actually told to redouble their efforts at
building distinct national cultures. Just as the “reconstruction of
Moscow”was changing from grandiose visions of refashioning the whole cityscape
to a focused attempt to create several perfect artifacts, so the nationality
policy had abandoned the pursuit of countless rootless nationalities in order
to concentrate on a few full-fledged, fully equipped “nations.” While the curtailment of ethnic quotas and
the new emphasis on Soviet meritocracy (“quality of cadres”) slowed down and
sometimes reversed the indigenization process in party and managerial
bureaucracies, the celebration of national cultures and the production of
native intelligentsias intensified dramatically. Uzbek communities outside
Indeed, the 1934 Congress of Soviet Writers, which in many
ways inaugurated high Stalinism as a cultural paradigm, was a curiously
solemn parade of old-fashioned romantic nationalisms. Pushkin, Tolstoy and
other officially restored Russian icons were not the only national giants of
international stature - all Soviet peoples possessed, or would shortly
acquire, their own classics, their own founding fathers and their own
folkloric riches. The Ukrainian delegate
said that Taras Shevchenko was a “genius”and a “colossus” “whose role in the
creation of the Ukrainian literary language was no less important than
Pushkin’s role in the creation of the Russian literary language, and perhaps
even greater.” The Armenian delegate
pointed out that his nation’s culture was “one of the most ancient cultures of
the orient,” that the Armenian national alphabet predated Christianity and that
the Armenian national epic was “one of the best examples of world epic
literature” because of “the lifelike
realism of its imagery, its elegance, the profundity and simplicity of its
popular wisdom and the democratic nature of its plot.” The Azerbaijani delegate insisted that the Persian poet Nizami was actually a classic of Azerbaijani literature because he
was a “Turk from Giandzha” and that Mirza Fath Ali Akhundov was not a gentry
writer, as some proletarian critics had charged, but a “great
philosopher-playwright” whose “characters [were] as colorful, diverse and
realistic as the characters of Griboedov, Gogol’and Ostrovskii.” The Turkmen delegate told the Congress about
the eighteenth-century “ coryphaeus of Turkmen poetry,”Makhtum-Kuli; the Tajik
delegate explained that Tajik literature had descended from Rudaki, Firdousi,
Omar Khayyam and “other brilliant craftsmen of the world”; while the Georgian
delegate delivered an extraordinarily lengthy address in which he claimed that
Shot’ha Rust’haveli’s The Man in the Panther’s Skin was “centuries ahead
of west European intellectual movements,”infinitely superior to Dante and
generally “the greatest literary monument of the whole ... so-called medieval
Christian world.”
According to the new party line, all officially recognized
Soviet nationalities were supposed to have their own nationally defined “Great
Traditions”that needed to be protected, perfected and, if need be, invented
by specially trained professionals in specially designated
institutions. A culture’s “greatness” depended
on its administrative status (from the Union republics at the top to the
non-territorial nationalities who had but a tenuous hold on “culture”), but within a given category all national
traditions except for the Russian were supposed to be of equal value.
Rhetorically this was not always the case (
….
Even in 1936-1939, when hundreds of alleged nationalists
were being sentenced to death “the whole Soviet country”was noisily celebrating
the 1000th anniversary of Firdousi, claimed by the Tajiks as one of
the founders of their (and not Persian) literature…
(Slezkine,
Yuri. “The
Professor
Bert G. Fragner has also examined the arbitrary decisions of central powers in
the
Peculiarities of Soviet Nationalism
If these were the basic requirements, we
should now look for the consequences. According to the Soviet concept, nations
had to have their own specific territories. Territorialism was obligatory
according to Stalin’s basic theses on the National Question. The Soviet
principle of territoriality clearly and outspokenly contradicts the theories of
Renner and Bauer, who rejected territorial requirements for national minorities
etc. Within the Soviet system, any decisions on the limitation of territory
were the exclusive prerogative of the central power in Moscow. Economic
considerations and planning were also largely concentrated in central hands.
The Soviet power created territories for created nations like planned habitats
or biotopes, according to their Utopian vision of human and social engineering.
This means that in Soviet
nationalism there was no place for direct political leadership towards national
independence, and no place for a nation’s independent economic growth. But there was an important task for potential
national leaders: to support distinct collective identification with the
specific nation, that is, its territory, its (regulated, or at least
standardized) language, and its internal administration. This set of tasks was to be crowned by the development
of a specific and distinct culture within the Soviet frame, not to be confused
with others. Therefore, Soviet nationalism was less harmonizing than was widely
believed; it accepted inner-Soviet nationalist contradictions and dissent on
territories, divergent interpretations of the cultural heritage (such as: Was al-Farabi a Kazakh?
Was Ibn Sina (Avicenna) a Tajik or an Uzbek? To whom does al-Biruni
belong?) It was up to the central power
to solve these kinds of contradiction by arbitrary decisions. This makes clear
that Soviet nationalism was embedded into the political structure of what used
to be called ‘Democratic Centralism’. The territorial principle was extended to
all aspects of national histories, not only in space but also in time: ‘Urartu
was the oldest manifestation of a state not only on Armenian soil but
throughout the whole
(Fragner. B.G., ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy
to the
We
note that
J.G.
Tiwari has also summarized and examined the
(Excerpted from Muslims Under the Czars and the Soviets by J.G. Tiwari, 1984, AIRP).
Taken
from: http://admin.muslimsonline.com/babri/azerbaijan1.htm (access date June 2006)
“Right on heels of October Revolution, the Bolsheviks in the
Russian dominated town of
Immediately after this economic exploitation of Azerbajian
began. Oil drilling rapidly increased. Influx of Russian settlers to
Within the Communist Party, opposition arose against
Russification and economic exploitation of
A striking example of Soviet attempts to snap the cultural
ties between
New generation of
From here the light will burst in living torrents, On Araby,
Afghanistan and Iran; and dawn will bathe the Orient tomorrow, From this thy
land, the happiest of lands [109].
The objective of Soviet literature and propaganda in
Since the very inception of Bolshevik regime
Because of the iron curtain the outside world knows very
little of the current popular reaction to Soviet regime in
“The Daily Telegraph dated May 22 1973 reported that the
nationalist upsurge has taken place in
“The underground radio stations’are known to exist in
References:
1.
2. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1976, Vol. 9, p. 493 and Vol. 7, p. 71.
An
example of nation building process is also given by Ismet Cherif Vanly in his
article describes the official state policy (which was really part of the
“Not only did Turkey and Azerbaijan pursue an identical policy, both employed identical techniques, e.g. forced assimilation, manipulation of population
figures, settlement of non-Kurds in areas predominantly Kurdish,
suppression of publications and abolition
of Kurdish as a medium of instruction in schools. A familiar Soviet technique was also used:
Kurdish historical figures such as Sharaf Khan of Bitlis and
Ahmad Khani and the Shaddadid dynasty as a whole were described as Azeris.
Kurds who retained “Kurdish”as their nationality on their internal passports as opposed to
“Azeri”were unable to find employment.”
(Ismet Chériff Vanly, “The Kurds in the Soviet Union”, in: Philip G. Kreyenbroek & S. Sperl (eds.), The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview (London: Routledge, 1992))
It
should be pointed out that during the decay and finally the demise of the
The
late Professor Igor M. Diakonoff gives a background on his writing of the book
History of Media and he clearly states as he always had maintained that the
Medes were Iranians. He also gives his impression on the 800th
anniversary celebration of Nizami Ganjavi. He gives an overview of the
http://www.srcc.msu.su/uni-persona/site/ind_cont.htm
http://www.srcc.msu.su/uni-persona/site/authors/djakonov/posl_gl.htm
Accessed August 2006.
I.M. Dyakonoff (1915-
1999)
Publisher: (European House),
ISBN 5-85733-042-4
The
book can also be found at the Russian National Library
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_National_Library
http://www.nlr.ru/cgi-bin/opac/nog/opac.exe
Дьяконов,
Игорь
Михайлович(1915-).
Книга
воспоминаний.
- СПб.: Фонд
регион.
развития
Санкт-Петербурга
и др., 1995.
- 765, [2] с.: портр.+ 25 см. -
(Дневники
и
воспоминания
петербургских
ученых).
Изд.
совместно с
ООО “Европ.
дом”, Европ.
ун-том в
Санкт-Петербурге.
- ISBN
5-85733-042-4 (ООО “Европ.
дом”).
ученых (Загл.
сер.)
................................
Местонахождение(шифр):
NLR 96-7/890
Дьяконов,
Игорь
Михайлович(1915-).
Книга
воспоминаний.
- СПб.: Фонд
регион.
развития
С.-Петербурга
и др., 1995. - 767
с.: портр., факс.+
25 см. - (Серия
“Дневники и
воспоминания
петербургских
ученых”/ Ред.
совет: Б.В.
Ананьич и др.).
На
обороте тит.
л. авт.:
востоковед
И.М.
Дьяконов. - ISBN 5-85733-042-4.
петербургских
ученых”(Загл.
сер.)
................................
Местонахождение(шифр):
NLR 96-7/531
The Book of Memoirs
Last Chapter (After the war)
pp 730 - 731
Our faculty at the University, as I already mentioned, was
closed “for Zionism”. There was only one position left open (“History of the
Ancient East”) which and I have conceded to Lipin, not knowing for sure then,
that he was an (secret service) informer, and was responsible for death of
lovely and kind Nika Erschovich. But Hermitage salary alone was not enough for
living, even combined with what Nina earned, and I, following to an advice from
a pupil of my brother Misha, Lesha Brstanicky, [signed a contract and] agreed
to write “History of the Media”for Azerbaijan. All they searched for more
aristocratic and more ancient ancestors, and Azerbaijanis hoped, that Medes
were their ancient ancestors.
The staff of
The majority of employees of the Institute had very distant relation to
science. Among other guests were my friend Lenja Bretanitsky (which, however,
worked at other institute), certain complacent and wise old man, who according
to rumors, was a red agent during Musavatists time, one bearer of hero of
Soviet Union medal, Arabist, who later become famous after publication of one
scientific historical medieval, either Arabic, or Persian manuscript, from
which all quotes about Armenians were removed completely; besides that there
were couple of mediocre archeologists; the rest were [Communist] party
activists, who were commissioned to scientific front.
Shortly before that celebrations of a series of
anniversaries of great poets of the
Problem was that the Koran strictly forbids any images of
alive essences, and nor a Nizami portrait, neither paintings illustrating his
poems existed from Nizami’s time.
So Nizami portrait and paintings illustrating his poems were
ordered three months before celebrations start. The portrait has been delivered
to the house of
- Is it close to original?
- Who is the original? - the expert has shy mumbled. Bagirov has reddened
from anger.
- Nizami!
- You see, - the expert told, - they have not created portraits in Middle Ages
in the East...
All the same, the portrait occupied a central place in
gallery. It was very difficult to imagine more ugly collection of ugly, botched
work, than that which was collected on a museum floor for the anniversary.
I could not prove to Azeris, that Medes were their
ancestors, because, after all, it was not so. But I wrote “History of the
Media”, big, detailed work. Meanwhile, according to the USSR law a person could
not have more than one job, so I was forced to leave (without a regret)
Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, and, alas, the Hermitage, with its scanty
earnings. For some period I worked at
(It
should be noted that Diakonoff here considers Azeris as equivalent to a Turkic
group, where-as in this author’s opinion, Azeri’s have a considerable Iranic
heritage and thus the Medes and their civilization are part of the broader
Iranic heritage of Azeris as well. This is what Prof. Planhol has called a
multi-secular symbiosis. It is noteworthy that the whole concept of
http://www.srcc.msu.su/uni-persona/site/authors/djakonov/posl_gl.htm
Original Russian of Professor Diakonov (this author does not speak Russian and thanks the anonymous friend who helped him by translating it and the translation was checked via computerized translator):
В
Университете
нашу кафедру,
как я уже
говорил,
закрыли «за
сионизм». По
специальности
«история
Древнего
Востока”оставили
одну ставку –
и я уступил
ее Липину, не
зная еще тогда
достоверно,
что он
стукач, и на
его совести
жизнь милого
и доброго Ники
Ерсховича. Но
на одну
эрмитажную
зарплату
было не
прожить с
семьей, даже
с тем, что
зарабатывала
Нина, и я, по
совету
ученика моего
брата Миши,
Лени
Брстаницкого,
подрядился
написать для
Азербайджана
«Историю Мидии».
Все тогда
искали
предков
познатнее и
подревнее, и
азербайджанцы
надеялись, что
мидяне – их
древние
предки.
Коллектив
Института
истории
Азербайджана
представлял собой
хороший
паноптикум. С
социальным
происхождением
и
партийностью
у всех было все
в порядке
(или так
считалось);
кое-кто мог объясниться
по-персидски,
но в основном
они были
заняты
взаимным
поеданием.
Характерная
черта:
однажды,
когда в мою
честь был устроен
банкет на
квартире
директора
института
(кажется,
переброшенного
с партийной работы
на железной
дороге), я был
поражен тем,
что в этом
обществе,
состоявшем
из одних членов
партии
коммунистов,
не было ни
одной женщины.
Даже хозяйка
дома вышла к
нам только около
четвертого
часа утра и
выпила за наше
здоровье
рюмочку, стоя
в дверях
комнаты. К
науке
большинство
сотрудников
института
имело
довольно
косвенное
отношение.
Среди прочих
гостей
выделялись
мой друг Леня
Бретаницкий
(который,
впрочем,
работал в другом
институте),
один некий
благодушный
и мудрый
старец,
который, по
слухам, был
красным
шпионом,
когда власть
в
Азербайджане
была у
мусаватистов,
один герой
Советского
Союза,
арабист,
прославившийся
впоследствии
строго
научным
изданием
одного
исторического
средневекового,
не то арабо-,
не то ирано-язычного
исторического
источника, из
которого,
однако, были
тщательно
устранены
все упоминания
об армянах;
кроме того,
были один или
два весьма
второстепенных
археолога; остальные
вес были
партработники,
брошенные на
науку.
Изысканные
восточные
тосты продолжались
до утра.
Незадолго
перед тем началась
серия
юбилеев
великих
поэтов народов
СССР. Перед
войной
отгремел
юбилей
армянского эпоса
Давида
Сасунского
(дата
которого вообще-то
неизвестна) –
хвостик
этого я
захватил в 1939 г.
во время
экспедиции
на раскопки
Кармир-блура.
А сейчас в
Азербайджане
готовился
юбилей
великого
поэта Низами.
С Низами была
некоторая
небольшая
неловкость: во-первых,
он был не
азербайджанский,
а персидский
(иранский)
поэт, хотя
жил он в ныне
азербайджанском
городе
Гяндже,
которая, как
и большинство
здешних
городов,
имела в Средние
века
иранское
население.
Кроме того,
по ритуалу
полагалось
выставить на
видном месте
портрет
поэта, и в
одном из
центральных
районов Баку
было
выделено
целое здание
под музей
картин,
иллюстрирующих
поэмы Низами.
Особая
трудность
заключалась
в том, что
Коран
строжайше
запрещает
всякие изображения
живых
существ, и ни
портрета, ни
иллюстрацион
картин во
времена
Низами в
природе не
существовало.
Портрет
Низами и
картины,
иллюстрирующие
его поэмы
(численностью
на целую
большущую
галерею)
должны были
изготовить к
юбилею за три
месяца.
Портрет
был доставлен
на дом
первому
секретарю ЦК
КП Азербайджана
Багирову,
локальному
Сталину. Тот
вызвал к себе
ведущего
медиевиста
из Института
истории,
отдернул
полотно с портрета
и спросил:
– Похож?
– На кого?... –
робко
промямлил
эксперт.
Багиров покраснел
от гнева.
– На Низами!
–
Видите ли, –
сказал
эксперт, – в
Средние века
на Востоке
портретов не
создавали...
Короче
говоря,
портрет
занял
ведущее место
в галерее.
Большего
собрания
безобразной
мазни, чем
было собрано
на музейном
этаже к
юбилею, едва
ли можно себе
вообразить.
Доказать
азербайджанцам,
что мидяне –
их предки, я
не смог,
потому что
это все-таки
не так. Но
«Историю
Мидии”написал
– большой,
толстый,
подробно
аргументированный
том. Между тем,
в стране
вышел закон,
запрещающий
совместительство,
и мне пришлось
(без
сожаления)
бросить и
Азербайджанскую
Академию
наук, и, увы,
Эрмитаж с его
мизерным
заработком.
Некоторое
время работал
с
Ленинградском
отделении
Института истории,
созданном на
руинах
разгромленного
уникального
музея
истории
письменности
Н.П.Лихачсва,
а одно время
числился
почему-то по
московскому
отделению
этого же
Института истории.”
Another Russian scholar that can be mentioned Victor A. Shnirelman, who received his Ph.D. in History and is a leading scientist of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He has published studies and articles on interethnic relations and conflicts, and focused on Russian nationalist ideologies and anti-Semitism from the historical and current perspectives. He teaches the sociology of interethnic relations and nationalism, as well as an introduction to the History of anti-Semitism at the Jewish University of Moscow.
Shnirelman writes in his important book in 2003:
К этому
времени
отмеченные
иранский и
армянский
факторы
способствовали
быстрой азербайджанизации
исторических
героев и исторических
политических
образований на
территории
Азербайджана.
В частности,
в 1938 г. Низами в
связи с его
800-летним
юбилеем был объявлен
гениальным
азербайджанским
поэтом (История,
1939. С. 88-91). На самом
деле он был
персидским
поэтом, что и
неудивительно,
так как городское
население в
те годы было
представлено
персами
(Дьяконов, 1995. С. 731).
В свое время
это признавалось
всеми энциклопедическими
словарями,
выходившими в
России, и
лишь Большая
Советская
Энциклопедия
впервые в 1939 г.
объявила
Низами
"великим
азербайджанским
поэтом" (Ср.
Брокгауз и Ефрон,
1897. С. 58; Гранат, 1917. С.
195; БСЭ, 1939. С. 94).
Translation
from Russian:
By that time, already mentioned Iranian and Armenian
factors contributed to the rapid azerbaijanization of historical heroes and
historical political entities on the territory of Azerbaijan.
In particular, in 1938, Nizami in connection with his 800-year anniversary was
declared a genius(marvelous) Azerbaijani poet (History, 1939. Pp 88-91). In
fact, he was a Persian poet, which is not surprising, because the urban
population in those years was Persian (Dyakonov, 1995. page. 731). At one time
it was recognized by all Encyclopedic Dictionaries of published in Russia, and only the Big Soviet Encyclopedia for the
first time in 1939, announced Nizami as a "Great Azerbaijani poet (Sr.
Brockhaus and Efron, 1897. page. 58; Garnet, 1917. page. 195 ; BSE, 1939. p.
94).
Source:
(Russian)
Shnirelman, Viktor A. Memory Wars: Myths, Identity and Politics in
Transcaucasia. Moscow: Academkniga, 2003 ISBN 5-9462-8118-6.
Note the above book is critical of ethnic driven historiography in the Transcaucasia (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia) in general.
The Russian philologist Ivan Mikhailovich Steblin-Kamensky, Professor and the Dean of the Oriental Department of Saint Petersburg University comments
(“Oriental
Department is ready to cooperate with the West”, Saint Petersburg University
newspaper, № 24—25 (3648—49), 1
November 2003”). http://www.spbumag.nw.ru/2003/24/1.shtml):
Мы
готовили
таких
специалистов,
но, как показывает
наше с ними
общение, там
очень много
националистических
тенденций,
научных
фальсификаций.
Видимо, это
связано с
первыми
годами самостоятельности.
В их трудах
присутствует
националистическое
начало, нет
объективного
взгляда,
научного
понимания
проблем, хода
исторического
развития.
Подчас – откровенная
фальсификация.
Например,
Низами,
памятник которому
воздвигнут
на
Каменноостровском
проспекте,
объявляется
великим
азербайджанским
поэтом. Хотя
он
по-азербайджански
даже не
говорил. А
обосновывают
это тем, что
он жил на
территории
нынешнего
Азербайджана
– но ведь
Низами писал
свои стихи и
поэмы на персидском
языке!
Translation:
" We trained such specialists, but, as shown by our
communication with them, there are a lot of nationalistic tendencies there and
academic fraud. Apparently it's related to the first years of independence.
Their works include nationalist beginnings. Objective perspective,
scientific understanding of the problems and timeline of historical
developments are lacking. Sometimes there is an outright falsification.
For example, Nizami, the monument of whom was erected at Kamennoostrovsk
boulevard, is proclaimed Great Azerbaijani poet. Although he did not even speak
Azeri. They justify this by saying that
he lived in the territory of current Azerbaijan, but Nizami wrote his
poems in Persian language!”
Overall, it seems the political detachment of Nezami Ganjavi from Iranian civilization is recognized by authors who write about the former USSR: Yo'av Karny, “Highlanders : A Journey to the Caucasus in Quest of Memory”, Published by Macmillan, 2000. Pg 124: “In 1991 he published a translation into Khynalug of the famous medieval poet Nezami, who is known as Persian but is claimed by Azeri nationali