Azerbaijanis are a people without a name, but with ancient roots. Customs and traditions of the Azerbaijani people

In recent days, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has been repeating the same words at every corner: "Nagorno-Karabakh is the historical territory of Azerbaijan." Meanwhile, the Republic of Azerbaijan itself first appeared on the world map only in 1918. At that time, taking advantage of the collapse of the Russian Empire, the Turkish regular army that invaded Transcaucasia created a Turkic state called Azerbaijan in the east of the region. After 56 years, by the way, in 1974, Turkey will repeat the successful experience of creating a Turkic state, as a result of which Europe will receive another hotbed of tension - Northern Cyprus.

But maybe the state of Azerbaijan existed before 1918, and simply had a different name? History shows no. The territory, now perceived under the artificial name of the Republic of Azerbaijan, never constituted a single administrative unit and at different periods of history, in whole or in part, belonged to or was divided between different states: Media, Caucasian Albania, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Russia, the USSR ...

Or maybe Ilham Aliyev means that a single ethnic monolith of the Transcaucasian Turks historically compactly inhabited the territory of modern Azerbaijan? Does he mean that the Transcaucasian Turks did not have a state, but had a homeland? And again the answer will be negative.

The very concept of Motherland is absent in the language of the Transcaucasian Turks. “Mother's yurt” - this is how the Turkic word Anayurdu is translated, this is how, literally, the word is translated, which the Transcaucasian Turks use to designate the word Motherland. And their close and distant ancestors had to sew these yurts in the vast expanses from Transbaikalia to Constantinople.

In the process of centuries of nomadism, the first waves of Turks arrived in the Caucasus in the 13th-14th centuries, and this process continued until the 18th century inclusive. They managed to exterminate, destroy, evict from the region many indigenous peoples known since ancient times and gain a foothold on their land. The relic remains of these peoples: the Kryztsy, Khinaluks, Udins, Budukhs and others, who are part of a single Lezgi ethnic group, still live in the highest mountainous regions of Azerbaijan, because it was there that they once found salvation from warlike nomads.

A new wave of annexation took place after the proclamation of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, when this political entity, with the help of the Turkish army, conquered the territories of the Talysh, Lezgins, Avars, Tsakhur, indigenous in the region ... All these peoples defended themselves against the aggression of Azerbaijan to the best of their ability: the Talysh even proclaimed their own state , which lasted over a year, but eventually fell under the blows of the Azerbaijani-Turkish army. Azerbaijan then tried to conquer Nagorno-Karabakh, where the first nomadic Turks, later called Azerbaijanis, appeared only in the 17th century, but the Armenians of the region managed to defend themselves from aggression.

In the autumn of 1920, units of the Soviet Red Army entered Artsakh. And on July 5, 1921, the ancient Armenian region was included within the boundaries of Soviet Azerbaijan. For the current reader, this may seem incredible, but, such were the realities of Bolshevism, the decision to include the Armenian region within the boundaries of Soviet Azerbaijan was made by the party body of the third state: the Caucasian Bureau of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Imagine if the Socialist Party of France decided to transfer, for example, German Bavaria to, say, the Czech Republic! Absurd, of course, but it is precisely this absurd and voluntaristic decision of a party body of a third party that to this day is the only document by which Azerbaijan and its President Aliyev “substantiate” their territorial claims to the primordially Armenian land.

During the years of Soviet power, the territory of Artsakh was under the jurisdiction of the Soviet Union, the inhabitants of the Armenian autonomy underwent compulsory military service in the ranks of the USSR army, state supervision in the territory of Artsakh was carried out by the prosecutor of the NKAR appointed by the Prosecutor General of the USSR. The inhabitants of Artsakh were citizens of the USSR (there was a single citizenship in the Soviet Union). The interests of the autonomous region in the highest legislative body of the USSR - the Supreme Soviet of the USSR - were represented by deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR elected in Artsakh. They were elected precisely as representatives of a national-state formation in a federal state, which, according to the Constitution, was the USSR. Thus, we have the right to state that the Armenian Autonomous Region, located within the Azerbaijan SSR, was part of the Soviet Union.

On August 30, 1991, the Azerbaijan SSR announced the start of the process of secession from the USSR. On October 18, 1991, Azerbaijan adopted the Constitutional Act "On Independence". However, Artsakh was no longer within Azerbaijan. On September 2, 1991, based on international law and the laws of the USSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic declared its sovereignty.

The legislative body of Azerbaijan declared the independence of the country without taking into account the opinion of the population, that is, without a referendum. International law qualifies similar actions as a usurpation of power. The usurpation of power in Azerbaijan took place not only in the regions densely populated by indigenous peoples (the south and north of the Republic of Azerbaijan are predominantly populated by Talysh, Lezgins, Avars, Tsakhurs), but also throughout the entire territory of the republic.

On the contrary, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic became self-determined in full compliance with international law and the laws of the USSR, completing the sovereignization process with a nationwide referendum on December 10, 1991.

Artsakh was not part of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918-20: Azerbaijan then failed to conquer the Armenian region.

Artsakh was not included Azerbaijan USSR: the Armenian region was part of a federal entity called the Soviet Union.

Artsakh is not and will not be part of the Republic of Azerbaijan illegally proclaimed in 1991. Both of these state entities spun off from the Soviet Union. The difference is that, unlike Azerbaijan, the NKR proclaimed its statehood in full accordance with the law.

However, Azerbaijan tried to annex the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic by launching a large-scale aggression against it. The results of this aggression are well known: tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, broken destinies, lost hopes...

Declaring that “Azerbaijan is much stronger than Armenia” and if the Republic of Artsakh does not agree to become part of Azerbaijan, the latter “will have to think about other ways to resolve the conflict,” Ilham Aliyev is simply blackmailing the world community. The President of Azerbaijan is not at all sure of the military superiority of the formation he leads over the Armenian states, rather, on the contrary, otherwise he would not fail to commit aggression, as was the case in 1988-94. However, Aliyev is convinced of Europe's sincere desire to see the Caucasus peaceful and prosperous. Aliyev also understands, and all his interviews confirm this, that the Caspian Sea basin is one of the alternative sources of hydrocarbon supplies to Europe. The resumption of hostilities, of course, will become an almost insurmountable obstacle to the transportation of energy resources to Europe, which is what Aliyev is trying to blackmail in search of allies for political pressure on the Republic of Artsakh.

Well, I admit, Ilham Aliyev is right: in case of resumption of aggression against the Republic of Artsakh, oil and gas from Azerbaijan will indeed stop flowing anywhere. The Armenian side simply cannot allow the country that is at war with it to be able to build up its economic opportunities without hindrance. Even the president of Azerbaijan, who is still counting the number of casualties in the ranks of the askerni in recent days, has no doubts about the capabilities and high morale of the Defense Army of the Republic. He has no doubts, therefore he blackmails. But not us, but the world community.

Ilham Aliyev is well aware of the existence of a significant Armenian community in the world, the emergence of which became possible as a result of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey. Hence his demagogic exclamation-question: “Imagine what will happen if the Armenians try to self-determine themselves in all the countries of the world where they live. How many new Armenian states can be formed?” This poorly hidden and even more stupid provocation can only be answered with mocking irony towards its author: "No more than Turkic."

However, after today's meetings in Sochi, the question of the continued existence of one of them Turkic states can be called into serious doubt.

Levon MELIK-SHAHNAZARYAN

Azerbaijanis

representatives of the nation that constitutes the majority of one of the states of Transcaucasia-Azerbaijan. By their nature, A. are inquisitive, quick-witted, brave, freedom-loving, keep their promises. As a rule, they are kept modestly, but with dignity, they are distinguished by the speed of judgments and conclusions, which cannot always be unambiguously interpreted by other people in their relationship with them.

It is impossible not to take into account the great emotionality of Azerbaijanis. A disrespectful attitude towards them or their relatives is almost always perceived as an attack on their honor and dignity, and can cause them a feeling of resentment or a sharp response. When communicating with Azerbaijanis, one should show as much tact, attentiveness, and genuine respect as possible. Trust, friendship and participation can get more out of them than pressure and coercion.

In conflict situations, Azerbaijanis are emotionally intemperate and ardent, but not as recklessly as, for example, Chechens or Ossetians. However, at such moments they are sometimes inclined to resolve issues with representatives of other nationalities "from a position of strength", stand up for their fellow countrymen, regardless of whether they are right or not in this case.

The attitude to work in Azerbaijan is not unambiguous. Most people generally conscientiously master the profession, their business, become good specialists. At the same time, there are quite a few of those who show laziness, a desire to find a "warm place". There are also people who strive to be wealthy, to have prestigious things, a car, without doing anything for this. In general, Azerbaijanis in general often approach life in an overly pragmatic way, often guided only by the momentary benefit that they can derive for themselves.

They are very sensitive to success, honor, fame. Not the least role is played by their great ambition. Azerbaijanis love to brag about their successes in official and social activities, emphasize personal merits and achievements in every possible way, do everything so that other people pay special attention to this.

Azerbaijanis willingly communicate and interact with people different nationalities. They readily take up the study of the Russian language, although due to the fact that it bears little resemblance to their native language, as a rule, they do not achieve very great success. However, sometimes, even knowing the Russian language, an Azerbaijani hides this, trying, when necessary, to use such a circumstance in his own interests.

Ethnopsychological dictionary. - M.: MPSI. V.G. Krysko. 1999

See what "Azerbaijanis" are in other dictionaries:

Azerbaijanis- azərbaycanlılar آذربایجانلیلار, azərilər آذری لر ... Wikipedia

AZERBAIJANIS Modern Encyclopedia

AZERBAIJANIS- (self-name azerbaijanlylar azeriler), people, the main population of Azerbaijan (5.8 million people, 1992). They also live in Iran (10430 thousand people), the Russian Federation (336 thousand people), Georgia (307 thousand people), Kazakhstan (90 thousand people) ... Big encyclopedic Dictionary

AZERBAIJANIS- AZERBAIJANIS, ev, unit. net, ntsa, husband. The people who are the main indigenous people Azerbaijan. | female Azerbaijani, and | adj. Azerbaijani, oh, oh. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

AZERBAIJANIS- (self-name azerbaijanlylar, azerilsr), people. There are 335.9 thousand people in the Russian Federation. The main population of Azerbaijan. They also live in Iran and other countries. The Azerbaijani language is the Oguz group of Turkic languages. Believers are mostly ... ... Russian history

Azerbaijanis- (the self-name is Azerbaijanianlylar, also includes peoples close to the main ethnic group: Ayrums, Afshars, Bayats, Karadags, Karapapahis, Padars, Shahsevens) people, the main population of Azerbaijan. The total number of 17200 thousand people. Main… … Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Azerbaijanis- ev; pl. People, the main population of Azerbaijan; representatives of this people. ◁ Azerbaijani, nza; m. Azerbaijanka, and; pl. genus. nok, date nkam; and. ◁ Azerbaijani, oh, oh. A. language (one of the Turkic languages). * * * Azerbaijanis (self-name ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

AZERBAIJANIS- Representatives of the nation that constitutes the majority of one of the states of the Transcaucasus of Azerbaijan. By their nature, A. are inquisitive, quick-witted, brave, freedom-loving, keep their promises. As a rule, they keep modestly, but with ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

Azerbaijanis- AZERBAIJANIS, sev, pl (unit Azerbaijani, ntsa, m). The people constituting the main indigenous population of Azerbaijan, a state located in the east. parts of Transcaucasia, on the coast of the Caspian Sea; people belonging to this people; language… … Explanatory dictionary of Russian nouns

Azerbaijanis- azerbaijanlylar, azeriler, nation. In the USSR, Azerbaijanis make up the main population of the Azerbaijan SSR (67.5% according to the 1959 census). They live partly in the Georgian SSR, the Armenian SSR and the Dagestan ASSR, as well as in the Uzbekistan SSR, the Turkmen SSR, ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Introduction.

Azerbaijanis, Azerbaijani Turks, Iranian Turks - this is all the name of the same modern Turkic people of Azerbaijan and Iran
On the territory of the now independent states, formerly part of the Soviet Union, live 10-13 million Azerbaijanis, who, in addition to Azerbaijan, also live in Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. In 1988-1993, as a result of the aggression of the Armenian authorities, about one million Azerbaijanis of South Transcaucasia were expelled from their native lands.
According to some researchers, Azerbaijanis make up one third of the total population of modern Iran and occupy the second place in the country after the Persians in this indicator. Unfortunately, science today does not have accurate data on the number of Azerbaijanis living in northern Iran. Approximately their number is determined from 30 to 35 million.
Azerbaijani is also spoken by Afshars and Qizilbash living in some areas of Afghanistan. The language of some Turkic groups of southern Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Balkans is very close to the modern Azerbaijani language.
According to tentative estimates of researchers, today 40-50 million people speak the Azerbaijani language in the world.
Azerbaijanis, together with the Anatolian Turks genetically closest to them, make up over 60% of the total number of all modern Turkic peoples.
It should be noted that over the past two centuries, hundreds of books and articles have been written on the issues of the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijanis, a wide variety of thoughts, assumptions and conjectures have been expressed. At the same time, despite the existing diversity of opinions, they all basically boil down to two main hypotheses.
Supporters of the first hypothesis believe that the Azerbaijanis are the descendants of the ancient ethnic groups who inhabited in antiquity West Coast Caspian and adjacent territories (here most often referred to as Iranian-speaking Medes and Atropatenes, as well as Caucasian-speaking Albanians), which in the Middle Ages were "turkified" by newcomer Turkic tribes. In the Soviet years, this hypothesis of the origin of Azerbaijanis in the historical and ethnographic literature became a tradition. This hypothesis was especially zealously defended by Igrar Aliyev, Ziya Buniyatov, Farida Mamedova, A.P. Novoseltsev, S.A. Tokarev, V.P. Alekseev and others, although for argumentation in almost all cases these authors referred readers to the works of Herodotus and Strabo. Having penetrated into a number of generalizing publications (the three-volume "History of Azerbaijan"), the Median-Atropateno-Albanian concept of the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijanis became one of the widespread provisions of Soviet historical science. Archaeological, linguistic, ethnographic sources were practically absent in the works of the above authors. At best, toponyms and ethnonyms indicated in the writings of ancient authors were sometimes considered as evidence. Igrar Aliyev defended this hypothesis most aggressively in Azerbaijan. Although from time to time he expressed diametrically opposed views and ideas.
For example, in 1956 in the book "Media - ancient state on the territory of Azerbaijan" he writes: "To consider the Median language as unconditionally Iranian is at least not serious." (1956, p. 84)
In "History of Azerbaijan" (1995) he already states: "The Median language material currently at our disposal is sufficient to recognize the Iranian language in it." (1995, 119))
Igrar Aliev (1989): "Most of our sources, Atropatena is indeed considered part of the Media and in particular such an informed author as Strabo."(1989, p.25)
Igrar Aliev (1990): “One cannot always trust Strabo: “His geography contains a lot of contradictory things… The geographer made various kinds of unfair and gullible generalizations.” (1990, p. 26)
Igrar Aliev (1956): "You should not particularly trust the Greeks, who reported that the Mede and the Persian understood each other in conversation." (1956, p. 83)
Igrar Aliyev (1995): “Already the reports of ancient authors definitely testify that in ancient times the Persians and Medes were called Aryans.” (1995, p. 119)
Igrar Aliyev (1956): "The recognition of the Iranians in the Medes is undoubtedly the fruit of the tendentious one-sidedness and scientific schematicity of the Indo-European migration theory." (1956, p. 76)
Igrar Aliyev (1995): "Despite the absence of related texts in the Median language, we, now relying on significant onomastic material and other data, we can justifiably speak of the Median language and attribute this language to the northwestern group of the Iranian family." (1995, p. 119)
One can cite a dozen more such contradictory statements by Igrar Aliyev, a man who has been heading the historical sciences of Azerbaijan for about 40 years. (Gumbatov, 1998, pp. 6-10)
Proponents of the second hypothesis prove that the ancestors of the Azerbaijanis are the ancient Turks, who have lived in this territory since time immemorial, and all the newcomer Turks, of course, mixed with the local Turks, who have lived since ancient times in the territory of the southwestern Caspian Sea and the South Caucasus. The existence of various or even mutually exclusive hypotheses on a controversial issue in itself, of course, is quite acceptable, but, according to the famous scientists G. M. Bongard-Levin and E. A. Grantovsky, as a rule, some of these hypotheses, if not most, not accompanied by historical and linguistic evidence. (one)
However, supporters of the second hypothesis, as well as supporters of the first hypothesis, mainly rely on toponyms and ethnonyms mentioned in the works of ancient and medieval authors to prove the autochthonous nature of Azerbaijanis.
For example, an ardent supporter of the second hypothesis G. Geybullaev writes: “In ancient, Middle Persian, early medieval Armenian, Georgian and Arabic sources, in connection with historical events Numerous toponyms are mentioned on the territory of Albania. Our research has shown that the vast majority of them are ancient Turkic. This serves as a clear argument in favor of our concept of the Türkic-speaking Albanian ethnos of Albania in the early Middle Ages... The oldest Türkic toponyms include some toponyms in Albania, mentioned in the work of the Greek geographer Ptolemy (II century) - 29 settlements and 5 rivers. Some of them are Turkic: Alam, Gangara, Deglana, Iobula, Kaisi, etc. It should be noted that these toponyms have come down to us in a distorted form, and some of them are written in ancient Greek, some of the sounds of which do not coincide with the Turkic languages.
The toponym Alam can be identified with the medieval toponym Ulam - the name of the place where Iori flows into the river. Alazan in the former Samukh in northeastern Albania, which is currently called Dar-Doggaz (from Azeri dar "gorge" and doggaz "passage"). The word 'ulam' means 'passage' (cf. contemporary meaning the word doggaz "passage") is still preserved in Azerbaijani dialects and undoubtedly goes back to the Turkic ol, olam, olum, "ford", "crossing". The name of the mountain Eskilyum (Zangelan region) is also connected with this word - from the Turkic eski "old", "ancient" and ulum (from ol) "passage".
Ptolemy at the mouth of the Kura River indicates the Gangar point, which is probably the phonetic form of the toponym Sangar. In ancient times there were two points in Azerbaijan called Sangar, one at the confluence of the Kura and Araks rivers and the second at the confluence of the Iori and Alazani rivers; It is difficult to say which of these toponyms refers to the ancient Gangar. As for the linguistic explanation of the origin of the toponym Sangar, it goes back to the ancient Turkic sangar "cape", "corner". The toponym Iobul is probably the most ancient, but distorted name of Belokan in northwestern Azerbaijan, in which it is not difficult to distinguish the components of Iobul and "kan". In the source of the 7th century, this toponym is noted in the form of Balakan and Ibalakan, which can be considered a link between Ptolemy's Iobul and modern Belokans. This toponym was formed from the ancient Turkic bel "hill" of the connecting phoneme a and kan "forest" or the suffix gan. The toponym Deglan can be associated with the later Su-Dagylan in the Mingachevir region - from Azeri. su "water" and dagylan "collapsed". The hydronym Kaishi is possibly a phonetic formation from koisu "blue water"; notice, that modern name Geokchay means "blue river". (Geibullaev G.A. To the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijanis, v.1 - Baku: 1991. - pp. 239-240).
Such "proofs" of the autochthonous nature of the ancient Turks are actually anti-proofs. Unfortunately, 90% of the works of Azerbaijani historians are based on a similar etymological analysis of toponyms and ethnonyms.
However, most modern scientists believe that the etymological analysis of toponyms cannot help in solving ethnogenetic problems, since toponymy changes with the change of population.
So, for example, according to L. Klein: “People leave toponymy not where they lived more or originally. Toponymy remains from the people where its predecessors are completely and quickly swept away, not having time to transfer their toponymy to newcomers, where many new tracts arise that require a name, and where this newcomer people still lives or continuity is not broken later by a radical and rapid change of population " .
At present, it is generally recognized that the problem of the origin of individual peoples (ethnic groups) should be solved on the basis of an integrated approach, that is, by the joint efforts of historians, linguists, archaeologists and representatives of other related disciplines.
Before proceeding to a comprehensive consideration of the problem of interest to us, I would like to dwell on some facts that are directly related to our topic.
First of all, this concerns the so-called "Medes heritage" in the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijanis.
As is known, one of the authors of the first hypothesis we are considering is the chief Soviet specialist in ancient languages, I.M. Dyakonov.
Over the past half century, in all works on the origin of Azerbaijanis, there are references to the book by I.M. Dyakonov "History of Media". In particular, for most researchers key point in this book there was an indication by I.M. Dyakonov that “there is no doubt that in the complex, multilateral and long process of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation, the Median ethnic element played a very historical periods– a leading role.”(3)
And suddenly, in 1995, I.M. Dyakonov expresses a completely different view of the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijanis.
In the Book of Memories (1995) I.M. Dyakonov writes: “I, on the advice of my brother Misha’s student, Leni Bretanitsky, contracted to write the “History of Media” for Azerbaijan. At that time everyone was looking for more knowledgeable and ancient ancestors, and the Azerbaijanis hoped that the Medes were their ancient ancestors. The staff of the Institute of History of Azerbaijan was a good panopticon. With social origin and partisanship, everyone was all right (or so it was believed); some could speak Persian, but mostly they were busy eating each other. Most of the Institute's staff had a rather indirect relationship to science... I could not prove to the Azerbaijanis that the Medes were their ancestors, because this is still not the case. But he wrote the History of the Media - a large, thick, well-reasoned volume. (four)
It can be assumed that this problem tormented the famous scientist all his life.
It should be noted that the problem of the origin of the Medes is still considered unresolved. Apparently, therefore, in 2001, European orientalists decided to get together and finally solve this problem by joint efforts.
Here is what famous Russian orientalists Medvedskaya I.N. write about this. and Dandamaev M.A.: “The contradictory evolution of our knowledge about Media was thoroughly reflected at the conference entitled “Continuation of the Empire (?): Assyria, Media and Persia”, held within the framework of the cooperation program between the Universities of Padua, Innsbruck and Munich in 2001. whose reports are published in a peer-reviewed volume. It is dominated by articles, the authors of which believe that the Median kingdom did not exist in essence ... that the description by Herodotus of the Medes as a huge ethnic group with a capital in Ecbatana is not confirmed by either written or archaeological sources (however, we add from ourselves, and are not refuted by them). (5)
It should be noted that in the post-Soviet period, most authors of ethnogenetic studies, when writing their next book, cannot brush aside a very unpleasant factor called “Shnirelman”.
The fact is that this gentleman considers it his duty in a mentoring tone to “criticize” all the authors of books on ethnogenesis published in the post-Soviet space (“Myths of the Diaspora”, “Khazar Myth”, “Memory Wars. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia”, "Patriotic education": ethnic conflicts and school textbooks", etc.).
So, for example, V. Shnirelman in the article "Myths of the Diaspora" writes that many Turkic-speaking scientists (linguists, historians, archaeologists): in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, in the North Caucasus, in Transcaucasia and even in a number of regions of Iran. (6)
About the ancestors of the modern Turkic peoples, V. Shnirelman writes the following: historical scene As tireless colonizers, the Turks in the course of the last centuries, by the will of fate, ended up in the situation of the diaspora. This determined the features of the development of their ethnogenetic mythology during the last century and, especially, in recent decades. (6)
If in Soviet era“specially empowered critics” like V. Shnirelman received another task from various special services to carry out the destruction of authors and their works that were not pleasing to the authorities, now these “free literary killers” work, apparently, for those who pay more.
In particular, the article "Myths of the Diaspora" was written by Mr. V. Shnirelman at the expense of the American John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
At whose expense V. Shnirelman wrote the anti-Azerbaijani book “Memory Wars. Myths, Identity and Politics in the Transcaucasus" was not found out, however, the fact that his opuses are often published in the newspaper of the Armenians of Russia "Yerkramas" speaks volumes.
Not so long ago (February 7, 2013) this newspaper published new article V. Shnirelman "Answer to my Azerbaijani critics". This article is no different in tone and content from previous writings by this author (7)
Meanwhile, the publishing house of the ICC “Akademkniga”, which published the book “Memory Wars. Myths, Identity and Politics in the Transcaucasus”, claims that it “provides fundamental research on the problems of the ethnicity of Transcaucasia. It shows how politicized versions of the past are becoming an important aspect of modern nationalist ideologies.”
I would not have devoted so much space to Mr. Shnirelman if he had not once again touched upon the problem of the origin of Azerbaijanis in his “Response to my Azerbaijani critics”. According to Shnirelman, he would very much like to know “why, during the 20th century, Azerbaijani scientists changed the image of their ancestors five times. This issue is discussed in detail in the book (“Wars of Memory. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia” -G.G.), but the philosopher (Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Zumrud Kulizade, author of a critical letter to V.Shnirelman-G.G.) believes this problem unworthy of their attention; She just doesn't notice it." (eight)
Here is how V. Shrinelman describes the activities of Azerbaijani historians in the 20th century: “in accordance with the Soviet doctrine, which showed particular intolerance towards “alien peoples”, the status of an indigenous people was urgently needed for the Azerbaijanis, and this required proof of autochthonous origin.
In the second half of the 1930s. Azerbaijani historical science received a task from the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Azerbaijan SSR M.D. Bagirov to write a history of Azerbaijan that would depict the Azerbaijani people as an autochthonous population and tear them away from their Turkic roots.
By the spring of 1939, the initial version of the history of Azerbaijan was ready and in May it was discussed at the scientific session of the Department of History and Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It carried the idea that Azerbaijan had been continuously inhabited since the Stone Age, that local tribes did not lag behind their neighbors in their development, that they valiantly fought against uninvited invaders and, even despite temporary setbacks, always retained their sovereignty. . It is curious that in this textbook the “proper” importance of Media in the development of Azerbaijani statehood was not yet given, the Albanian theme was almost completely ignored, and the local population, no matter what eras were discussed, was called exclusively “Azerbaijanis”.
Thus, the authors identified the inhabitants by their habitat and, therefore, did not feel the need for a special discussion of the problem of the formation Azerbaijani people. This work was in fact the first systematic presentation of the history of Azerbaijan prepared by Soviet Azerbaijani scientists. The most ancient population of the region was enrolled in the Azerbaijanis, as if it had changed little over the millennia.
Who were the most ancient ancestors of Azerbaijanis?
The authors identified them with "the Medes, Caspians, Albanians and other tribes who lived on the territory of Azerbaijan about 3,000 years ago."
November 5, 1940 A meeting of the Presidium of the Azerbaijan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was held, where the "ancient history of Azerbaijan" was directly identified with the history of Media.
The next attempt to write the history of Azerbaijan was made in 1945-1946, when, as we shall see, Azerbaijan lived in dreams of a close reunion with its kinsmen in Iran. Almost the same group of authors participated in the preparation of the new text of the "History of Azerbaijan", supplemented by specialists from the Institute of Party History who were responsible for sections on recent history. The new text was based on the previous concept, according to which the Azerbaijani people, firstly, formed from ancient population Eastern Transcaucasia and Northwestern Iran, and secondly, although it experienced some influence from later newcomers (Scythians, etc.), it was insignificant. What was new in this text was the desire to further deepen the history of Azerbaijanis - this time the creators of cultures were declared their ancestors bronze age on the territory of Azerbaijan.
The task was formulated even more clearly by the 17th and 18th Congresses. Communist Party Azerbaijan, held in 1949 and 1951, respectively. They called on Azerbaijani historians to "develop such important problems in the history of the Azerbaijani people as the history of Media, the origin of the Azerbaijani people."
And the following year, speaking at the 18th Congress of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, Bagirov portrayed nomadic Turks as robbers and murderers, who did not correspond much to the image of the ancestors of the Azerbaijani people.
This idea was clearly voiced during the campaign against the epic "Dede Korkut" in Azerbaijan in 1951. Its participants constantly emphasized that the medieval Azerbaijanis were sedentary people, bearers of high culture, and had nothing in common with wild nomads.
In other words, the origin of Azerbaijanis from the settled population of ancient Media was sanctioned by the Azerbaijani authorities; and scientists had only to work on the justification of this idea. The mission of preparing a new concept of the history of Azerbaijan was entrusted to the Institute of History of the Azerbaijan Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Now the main ancestors of the Azerbaijanis were again associated with the Medes, to which were added the Albanians, who allegedly preserved the traditions of ancient Media after its conquest by the Persians. Not a word was said about the language and writing of the Albanians, nor about the role of the Turkic and Iranian languages ​​in the Middle Ages. And the entire population that ever lived on the territory of Azerbaijan was indiscriminately considered to be Azerbaijanis and opposed to Iranians.
Meanwhile, there were no scientific grounds to confuse the early history of Albania and South Azerbaijan (Atropatena). In antiquity and in the early Middle Ages, completely different groups of the population lived there, not connected with each other either culturally, socially or linguistically.
In 1954, a conference was held at the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, condemning the distortions of history observed during the reign of Bagirov
Historians were given the task to write the "History of Azerbaijan" anew. This three-volume work appeared in Baku in 1958-1962. Its first volume was devoted to all the early stages of history up to the accession of Azerbaijan to Russia, and leading specialists from the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijan SSR participated in its writing. There were no archaeologists among them, although the volume began from the Paleolithic era. From the very first pages, the authors emphasized that Azerbaijan was one of the first centers of human civilization, that statehood arose there in ancient times that the Azerbaijani people created a high original culture and fought for centuries against foreign conquerors for independence and freedom. Northern and Southern Azerbaijan were considered as a single whole, and the accession of the former to Russia was interpreted as a progressive historical act.
How did the authors imagine the formation of the Azerbaijani language?
They recognized the great role of the Seljuk conquest in the 11th century, which caused a significant influx of Turkic-speaking nomads. At the same time, they saw in the Seljuks a foreign force that doomed the local population to new
hardships and hardships. Therefore, the authors emphasized the struggle of local peoples for independence and welcomed the collapse of the Seljuk state, which made it possible to restore Azerbaijani statehood. At the same time, they were aware that the dominance of the Seljuks marked the beginning of a widespread Turkic language, which gradually leveled the former linguistic differences between the population of South and North Azerbaijan. The population remained the same, but changed the language, the authors emphasized. Thus, the Azerbaijanis acquired the status of an unconditionally indigenous population, although they had foreign-speaking ancestors. Consequently, the original connection with the lands of Caucasian Albania and Atropatena turned out to be a much more significant factor than the language, although the authors acknowledged that the establishment of a linguistic community led to the formation of the Azerbaijani people.
The reviewed edition served as the basis for a new school textbook, published in 1960. All of its chapters devoted to the history of late XIX c., were written by Academician A.C. Sumbatzade. It even more clearly loomed the tendency to link the early Azerbaijani statehood with the kingdom of Manna and Media Atropatene. It was said about the early Turkic waves of the pre-Seljuk time, although it was recognized that the Turkic language finally won in the 11th-12th centuries. The role of the Turkic language in the consolidation of the country's population was also recognized, but the anthropological, cultural and historical continuity, rooted in the deepest local antiquity, was emphasized. This seemed sufficient to the author, and the question of the formation of the Azerbaijani people was not specially considered.
Until the early 1990s. this work retained its significance as the main course of the history of Azerbaijan, and its main provisions were perceived as instructions and a call to action.”(10)
As we can see, V. Shnirelman believes that the "fifth" concept officially approved and adopted by the authorities back in the 60s of the XX century (in our book it is considered as the first hypothesis) is still dominant outside of Azerbaijan.
Many books and articles have been written about the struggle of supporters of both hypotheses of the ethnogenesis of Azerbaijanis in the last 25 years. The first generation of Azerbaijani historians, who began in the 50-70s. deal with the problems of the ancient and medieval history of Azerbaijan (Ziya Buniyatov, Igrar Aliyev, Farida Mammadova and others), created a certain concept of the country's history, according to which the Turkization of Azerbaijan took place in the 11th century and it is from that time that it is necessary to talk about the initial stage of the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people . This concept was reflected not only in the book published in the mid-1950s. three-volume "History of Azerbaijan", but also Soviet school textbooks. At the same time, they were opposed by another group of historians (Mahmud Ismayilov, Suleiman Aliyarov, Yusif Yusifov, etc.), who advocated a deeper study of the role of the Turks in the history of Azerbaijan, in every possible way made the fact of the presence of the Turks in Azerbaijan ancient, believing that the Turks are primordially ancient people in the region. The problem was that the first group (the so-called "classics") had leading positions in the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences and mainly consisted of the so-called. "Russian-speaking" Azerbaijanis who were educated in Moscow and Leningrad. The second group had a weak position in the academic Institute of History. At the same time, representatives of the second group had strong positions in the Azerbaijan State University and the Azerbaijan State Pedagogical Institute, i.e. were very popular among teachers and students. The historical science of Azerbaijan has become an arena of struggle both within the country and from outside. In the first case, the number of publications of the representatives of the second group increased markedly, and they began to publish articles on the ancient history of Azerbaijan, according to which, on the one hand, the history of the appearance of the first Turks went back to ancient times. On the other hand, the old concept of the Turkification of the country in the 11th century was declared incorrect and harmful, and its representatives were, at best, declared retrogrades. The struggle between the two directions in the historical science of Azerbaijan was especially clearly manifested in the issue of publishing the academic 8-volume "History of Azerbaijan". Work on it began in the mid-70s and by the beginning of the 80s. six volumes (from the third to the eighth) were already ready for publication. However, the problem was that the first and second volumes were not accepted in any way, because there the main struggle of the two directions in Azerbaijani historiography unfolded because of the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people.
The complexity and severity of the conflict is evidenced by the fact that both groups of historians of Azerbaijan decided to take an unusual step: they simultaneously published one-volume "History of Azerbaijan". And here the pages devoted to the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people were the main ones, because otherwise there were no differences. As a result, in one book it is stated that for the first time the Turks appeared on the territory of Azerbaijan only in the 4th century, while in the other the Turks are declared an autochthonous population living here at least since III millennium BC.! One book claims that the name of the country "Azerbaijan" has ancient Iranian roots and comes from the name of the country "Atropatena". In another, the same is explained as a derivative of the name of the ancient Turkic tribe "as"! Surprisingly, both books deal with the same tribes and peoples (Saks, Massagets, Cimmerians, Gutians, Turukks, Albans, etc.), but in one case they are declared part of the Old Iranian or local Caucasian group of languages, in Otherwise, these same tribes are declared part of the ancient Turkic world! Bottom line: in the first book, they went away from detailed coverage of the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijani people, confining themselves to a brief statement that only in the Middle Ages, from the 4th to the 12th centuries, the process of formation of the Azerbaijani people took place on the basis of various Turkic tribes that constantly arrived in these centuries, mixed at the same time with local Iranian-speaking and other tribes and peoples. In the second book, on the contrary, this issue was singled out in a special chapter, where the traditional concept of education of the Azerbaijani people was criticized and it was indicated that the Turks had lived in the territory of Azerbaijan since ancient times.
As the reader could see, the problem of the origin of Azerbaijanis is still very far from being resolved. Unfortunately, none of the hypotheses of the origin of Azerbaijanis to this day has not been fully investigated, that is, in accordance with the requirements that modern historical science imposes on such ethnogenetic studies.
Unfortunately, there are no reliable facts supporting the above hypotheses. Until now, there is no special archaeological study dedicated to the origin of Azerbaijanis. We do not know, for example, how the material culture of the Manni differed from the culture of the Medes, Lullubis, Hurrians. Or, for example, how did the population of Atropatena differ from each other in anthropological terms from the population of Albania? Or how did the burials of the Hurrians differ from the burials of the Caspians and Gutians? What linguistic features of the language of the Hurrians, Gutians, Caspians, Manneans have been preserved in the Azerbaijani language? Without finding the answer to these and many similar questions in archeology, linguistics, anthropology, genetics and other related sciences, we will not be able to solve the problem of the origin of Azerbaijanis.
The famous Russian scientist L. Klein writes: “Theoretically”, “in principle”, you can, of course, build as many hypotheses as you like, deployed in any direction. But this is if there are no facts. Facts hold. They limit the band of possible searches.”(12)
I hope that the analysis of the archaeological, linguistic, anthropological, written and other materials discussed in this book and their evaluation will enable me to determine the true ancestors of the Azerbaijanis.

Literature:

1. G. M. Bongard-Levin. E. A. Grantovsky. From Scythia to India. Ancient Aryans: Myths and History M. 1983. p.101-

2. G. M. Bongard-Levin. E. A. Grantovsky. From Scythia to India. Ancient Aryans: Myths and History M. 1983. p.101-
http://www.biblio.nhat-nam.ru/Sk-Ind.pdf

3. I.M. Dyakonov. History of Media. From ancient times to the end of the 4th century BC M.L. 1956, page 6

4. (I.M. Dyakonov Book of memories. 1995.

5. Medvedskaya I.N., Dandamaev M.A. The History of Media in Recent Western Literature
Bulletin of Ancient History, No 1, 2006, pp. 202-209.
http://liberea.gerodot.ru/a_hist/midia.htm

6.V.Shnirelman, "Myths of the Diaspora".

7. V.A. Shnirelman. Answer to my Azerbaijani critics. "Yerkramas",

8. Shnirelman V.A. Wars of memory: myths, identity and politics in Transcaucasia. - M.: ICC "Akademkniga", 2003.p.3

9. V.A. Shnirelman. Answer to my Azerbaijani critics. "Yerkramas",

10. Shnirelman V.A. Wars of memory: myths, identity and politics in Transcaucasia. - M.: ICC "Akademkniga", 2003.p.

11. Klein L.S. It's hard to be Klein: An autobiography in monologues and dialogues. - St. Petersburg:
2010. p.245

A very young nation, until recently its representatives themselves did not know what to call themselves and who they are. They called themselves whatever they wanted. Under Soviet power - "Baku people". The formation of the Azerbaijani nation took place under the Soviet regime, it took on such a task. But in 1926 the people were still recorded as "Turks", and already in 1939 - Azerbaijanis.

(Such types are not currently available)

Low awareness of one's own ethnicity and statehood is characteristic. Only Heydar Aliyev (father), one can say, became the creator of the nation in the full sense of the word. His son Ilham continued his father's work. His work is hard, because the technological and general level of culture of the people is very low (all this is superimposed on modern lack of culture). Historically, in these parts they not only did not know what to call themselves, but also did not seek to know anything and learn, for example, about the existence atmospheric pressure, other physical laws. There was no Leyden jar here, Newton's apple did not fall, the Magdeburg hemispheres were not torn apart.

Even now I asked applicants and other young people what the number "pi" is, what is the radius of the Earth, its circumference, what is static electricity, what is the coefficient of friction, what is the width / length / depth of the Caspian Sea, etc. - no one answered a single question!

stylistic backwardness. Dressed as in uniform, all the guys are all as one, in jeans and white shirts. I would rather refrain from writing about girls and women. Outwardly everything not really, so to speak. Not Italians. There are a lot of people with bad figures, women become shapeless very early. And men too. Bad teeth from the age of 25, they insert gold ones. They do not wear glasses, because don't need them. Get acquainted through social networks, there are no live acquaintances. Men's eyes do not light up at the sight of any woman, as they once did. Facial expressions are poorly developed, expressing only gross and simple emotions. Innocent. Concrete thinking prevails. No romantics, no philosophers.

TV show.

But with all this, in general, Azerbaijan has achieved more than it should be due to its location. Thanks to natural wealth and thanks to the European ruler at the head of the country. Also an achievement!

The country looks decent, it is not a shame to show it. In general, order prevails - this is in the opinion of an outside observer (me). I have never seen anything negative or ugly. It doesn't happen often either.