به نام خداوند جان و خرد

کزین اندیشه برتر برنگذرد

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

ازمند امدند و سیل اسا

در کفی تیغ و در کفی یاسا

تنگ چشمان گول نابخرد

چاروازادگان صـحرا گرد

بدسگالان کژ نهاد پلشـت

دوزخی چهرگان سفله زشت

غولهای پلید ناهنجار

اژدها وش ددان خونخوار

خیل دیوان دل سپرده به ریو

تا به گردونشان رسیده غریو

بدگهر تیره ای انیرانی

خواستاران جنگ و ویرانی

کرده اغشته تیغ ها با زهر

ارزومند فتح ایرانشهر

به گمانی که تهمتن خوابست

نقش ایران فتاده بر ابست

یا یل تیزچنگ سرکش ؛ گیو

رفت و پردخته شد جهان از نیو

یا که بیژن ؛ هژبر رزم اگاه

سرنگون اوفتاده اندر چاه

یا که ارش به تیر پرتابی

نیست شد زیر گنبد ابی

یا که شد بیدرفشت جادو چیر

بر نبرده سوار یکه ؛ زریر

یا که اسفندیار پهلو مرد

و ان نهال دلاوری پژمرد

با خیالات خام و سودایی

کرده پا در رکاب خودرایی

اتش افروز و جانشکار و جسور

مست خودکامگی ز جام غرور

مردمانی نبرده بهره ز هوش

زندگی کرده در کنار وحوش

همچو اهریمنان خوف انگیز

تاختند اسب فتنه با چنگیز

کینه ها توختند و خون راندند

خشک و تر هرچه بود سوزاندند

بی خبر زانکه ارش و بیژن

گیو و اسفندیار رویین تن

یا زریر سوار و رستم زال

و انهمه شیر سرکشیده ز یال

از کیومرث نامدار سترگ

تا به بهمن ؛ یلان خرد و بزرگ

سربسر نام گوهری فردست

که ستیهنده تر زهر مردست

گوهری ابدیده در کوره

خون تاریخ و روح اسطوره

گوهری با تباری از فرهنگ

بسته بر خصم شرزه چون پالاهنگ

گوهری شبچراغ گمراهی

مطلع افتاب اگاهی

گوهری پرورنده ی پاکی

فره ای ایزدی و افلاکی

گوهری نخلبند اندیشه

کرده در خاک معرفت ریشه

جنگ ان بدرگان خشم اور

جنگ خرمهره بود با گوهر

چالشی دیگر از گذشته ی دور

بین پروردگان ظلمت و نور

کهنه پیکار اهریمن رایی

با سبک روحی اهورایی

کارزاری که جز سیه روزی

بدگمان را نبود از ان روزی

گیر و داری که گوهر فرهنگ

زد بر ان مهر نام و داغ ننگ

مهر نامی که تا به جاویدان

می درخشد به تارک ایران

داغ ننگی که تا به رستاخیز

می کشد تار شرم ان چنگیز

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

By Garshasp

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Three revisionist writers quoted heavily by Asgharzadeh. 5

Naser Pourpiar 5

Brenda Shaffer 12

Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi 16

Medes. 29

Parthians. 34

Other pseudo-scholars mentioned by Asgharzadeh. 34

Racist Websites. 34

Javad Heyat 35

Sadiq Mohammadzadeh. 35

Alireza Nazmi Afshar 35

Historical Turco-Iranian Encounters. 37

Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period. 45

Persian language among Turkish dynasties. 51

Oghuz attack on Azerbaijan during Ghaznavids. 53

Negative view of Turks by the Ottomans. 56

Are Azeris Turks?. 58

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

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

Iranian nationalism in the 19th century caucus. 72

Ottomon spreading of Pan-Turkism.. 72

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

Some Introductory material from Alireza Asgharzadeh. 91

Falsification of Iran’s history by Asgharzadeh. 97

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

Bogus Census of Demographics of Iran by Asgharzadeh. 108

Another Bogus figure. 117

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

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

Foreign Interference. 122

British meddling in Khuzestan. 122

Ottomon interference and pan-Turkism.. 123

USSR interference and Pishevari: 123

Saddam Hussein and Khuzestan. 125

The republic of Azerbaijan. 125

The West 126

Cartoon issue. 130

Response to Vaziri and Joya Sa’ad Blondel 137

Yes the majority of Iranians have been victims. 140

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

Dede Qorqod not related to pre-Islamic Iran. 160

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

Cuneiform and Greek and Old Persian. 163

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

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

Ferdowsi, Shahnameh and Pan-Turkism.. 213

Omission of important sentences from sources. 241

Arya/Pars. 252

Rezashah/Khiyabani/Khazal/Ferqeh. 267

Pan-Turkists, Ferqeh and Kurds. 300

Nazi Germany and the Muslim World. 307

Arran and Azerbaijan. 311

Misrepresentation of Aref Qazvini and Shahryar 334

Afghanistan and Iraq. 336

More example of pan-Turkist historiography. 337

Conclusion. 339

 

Three revisionist writers quoted heavily by Asgharzadeh

 

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

 

Naser Pourpiar

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Exact Persian:

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

Actual quote of Pourpiar to one of his followers:

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Exact quote:

 

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

 

 

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

 

See:

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

‘’

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

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

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

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

‘’

 

 

Another example of Pourpirar’s revisionism.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

         

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Partial English translation of Kiyanoori:

 

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

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

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

 

 

For responses to Pourpirar, one can refer to:

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

 

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

 

*The glorious Millenaries  هزاره های پرشکوه  by Dariush Ahmadi

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

*Cyrus and the Bible by Houshang Sadeghi

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Brenda Shaffer

 

Brenda Shaffer maintains a webpage here:

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For example:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mohammad Taqi Zehtabi

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

Professor Vladimir Minorsky also states:

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

According to Professor Xavier De Planhol:

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

N. Light further explains:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

1)      Uralic

2)      Altaic

3)      Dravidian

4)      Aborigine languages of Australia

5)      Basque language

6)      African languages like Bantu

7)      South, North West, North East Caucasian languages

8)      North American languages including Nahuatl, Salish..

9)      South American native languages

 

 

 

According to the linguistic definition:

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

 

For example even Indo-European languages show agglutinating features. 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

and in the article:

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

 

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

 

Professor Mridula Adenwala Durbin:

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

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

Professor William H. Jacobsen

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

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

 

Professor Johann Knobloch: 

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

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

 

 

Professor W.P. Lehman:

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

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

 

Professor Joe E. Piece:

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

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

 

Professor H.K. J. Cowan:

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

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

Professor Istvan Fodor:

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

Professor. Gerard Caluson:

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the introduction he says:


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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

Sumerian and PIE

 

Sumerian and PIE 2

 

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

 

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

 

Lexical Correspondences between Sumerian and Dravidian

 

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

 

Sumerian :TAMIL  of the First CaGkam

 

Sumerian and Basque

 

Austric relationship of Sumerian Language

 

But are not taken seriously by scholarship. 

 

An example of Zehtabi’s scholarship:

 

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

 

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

 

Translation:

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

 

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

 

 

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