Turks, Mongols and a Persian Secretarial Class in Early Delhi Sultanate

[Samandri]

W

@Charon 2, check "^ The History of India as told by its own Historians
by Eliot and Dowson,
Volume 2 page 576 in google books. According to Istakhri and Ibn Haukal , ghurids spoke different langauge than khorasanis. Which means they were definately not persian speakers.

 

[Samandri]

Iranica is twisting the words, contemporary historians , persians themeselves, are saying that ghurids spoke different langauge than persian. But iranica/wiki has twisted the facts and is saying that it is subject of controversy and were speaking form of persian different than court langauge. Patrons of persian langauge and art? They also say so about durrani empire. They should provide historical source and details which indicate that ghurids were iranians and patron of persian civilization. They are not able to explain why ghurids had soori/suri surnames.

 

[Samandri]

Okay and any sources for your claim
The language of the Ghurids is subject to some controversy. What is known with certainty is that it was considerably different from the .
I think there is a great possibility that Ghurids were originally Pamiri "Tajiks" who adopted to Persian

Pamir mountains are tajikistan, karghistan, badakhshan and pakistan, how do you explain connection between pamiris and ghurids, with so much distance between two?. Heratis and farsiwans of ghor are related to iran , not badakhshanis . Hazaras and aimaks are forming majority and both are legacy of mongol invasion. Pashtuns live in southren districts of ghor and just below that, pashtun belt starts i.e it is adjacent to it from west and south. No signs of pamiri tajiks

 

[Adonis]

Hindostan was still a mess before the invaders came...
Dont you know that every Hindu king was fighting eachother in Hindostan before Muslim invaders came?
We civilized you guys otherwise you would have killed eachother in constant wars and caste system...

You Civilized India?? and today that civility is rampant in the world..just the opposite way...muslims killing muslims by hundreds each day. So as world is getting civilised, you are getting uncivilised. Is it?

Those primitives civilized you Hindus and made the biggest empires of the world...
Dont forget that your ancestors were their subsidaries... And you have the audacity to act tough on the internet

And what were your ancenstors? Emperor themselves?
Those so called empires were created because of self egos of few barbarians....what good to mankind they did? they created towers of human heads to flaunt their strength, destroyed other old civilisations (budhism, hinduism among them). Was common people happy in their rules?

 

[Charon 2]

Iranica is twisting the words, contemporary historians , persians themeselves, are saying that ghurids spoke different langauge than persian. But iranica/wiki has twisted the facts and is saying that it is subject of controversy and were speaking form of persian different than court langauge. Patrons of persian langauge and art? They also say so about durrani empire. They should provide historical source and details which indicate that ghurids were iranians and patron of persian civilization. They are not able to explain why ghurids had soori/suri surnames.

Is their any Pashto-written document by the Ghurids? I don't think so. C.E Bosworth is an award-winning historian and scholar and he says that the Ghurids were probably Tajiks and not Pashtuns.

Bosworth further points out that the actual name of the Ghurid family, Āl-e Šansab(Persianized: Šansabānī), is the Arabic pronunciation of the originally Middle Persian name Wišnasp, hinting at a (Sasanian)Persian origin.[16]

Everything is speculative but yes Wikipedia should also provide sources of scholars who see Ghurids as Pashtuns

 

[kalu_miah]

Yes but new sources suggest that they were Tajiks and most scholars today seem to support a Tajik origin for Ghorids. The most important thing is that they definitely spoke Persian neither Pashto not a Turkic language. Read this sentence again and make up your mind

Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman,
Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin.[13][14][15]

Ghilzais are a different story and the most possible theory for their origin is a mixed Khalaj Turkic and Eastern Iranian origin

I would go with Western scholars opinions considering the nationalism that afflicts most Eastern scholars.

As for Ghilzai's, I have serious doubt that they have anything to do with Khilji's/Khalaji's, in other words, I believe it is another tall nationalistic claims by Afghans. I want to open a thread in the Iranian subsection on this Ghilzai/Khilji/Khalaj issue to get more information.

@Samandri is it ok to ask your ethnic origin?

 

[Samandri]

I would go with Western scholars opinions considering the nationalism that afflicts most Eastern scholars.

As for Ghilzai's, I have serious doubt that they have anything to do with Khilji's/Khalaji's, in other words, I believe it is another tall nationalistic claims by Afghans. I want to open a thread in the Iranian subsection on this Ghilzai/Khilji/Khalaj issue to get more information.

@Samandri is it ok to ask your ethnic origin?

Strange that in case of khiljis , you are not going with westren historians who consider khiljis and ghilzais to be same. I am interested how you prove ghaljis and khiljis to be two different ethnic groups. Do explain why they were not accepted as proper turks but afghans in delhi court. Is it a coincidence that babur mentions about powerful khilji/khalaj people south of ghazni, which is nowadays traditional stronghold of ghilzais. Even much biased iranica agrees that ghilzais are pashtunized khalaj that were remnants of hepthalites and originated from turkemistan and were indo-iranian rather than turks.

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah about blame on Afghan nationalists, they reject khilji theory. According to Afghan nationalist version, ghiljay and lodhi were two sons of bibi mato and persian prince shah hussain and togather they are called matozai. They describe bibi mato as descendent of Qais abdul rasheed, a jew , descendent of prophet sulieman ,who converted to islam at the hands of Hazrat Mohammad P.b.u.h

 

[Kabira]

I would go with Western scholars opinions considering the nationalism that afflicts most Eastern scholars.

As for Ghilzai's, I have serious doubt that they have anything to do with Khilji's/Khalaji's, in other words, I believe it is another tall nationalistic claims by Afghans. I want to open a thread in the Iranian subsection on this Ghilzai/Khilji/Khalaj issue to get more information.

@Samandri is it ok to ask your ethnic origin?

Open it in history section.

 

[Samandri]

@kalu_miah the same westren scholar, bosworth, whom you trusted in case of ghurids, is saying that ghaljis/ghilzais are khiljis. Unable to post link due to being newbie but check out khalaj article on iranica.
@Charon 2

 

[Targon]

@kalu_miah the same westren scholar, bosworth, whom you trusted in case of ghurids, is saying that ghaljis/ghilzais are khiljis. Unable to post link due to being newbie but check out khalaj article on iranica.
@Charon 2

They could be, but keep in mind that tribal federations are often formed by one strong group subjugating different tribes, today's Ghilzais might be mostly locals, but their name could be coming from Khiljis as a result of this.

 

[kalu_miah]

http://philoshistorydepartment.weeb..._jackson__cambridge_university_press_1999.pdf

Mongol Presence in Northern Hindustan under the Delhi Sultanate, INDIA: THE UNREQUITED MONGOL EMPIRE | Prajakti Kalra - Academia.edu

 

[ManUNITEDglory]

Turks themselves have 7-10 % Mongoloid admixture on average. It's a fairytale imagination that some "Mongoloid" looking nomads were able to to spread their language to dozens of Anatolians without mixing with them. Turkmens weren't fully Mongoloid when they conquered Anatolia, as Turkmens from Turkmenistan have also only 15-20 % Mongoloid admixture. In genereal parlance: The average Turks carries the genes of the conquerers and the conquered ones

Even Turkmen themselves are mixture of Iranic but to say they are only 15-20% Mongoloid is TOTTALLY WRONG.


No, they don't have only 15-20% Mongoloid admixture if we are talking about other parts of Turkmenistan.


They have from 22 - 56% Mongoloid

Even the Afghan Turkmen are 37 - 45% Mongoloid Mongoloid and have 45% haplogroup Q and Iran 42% Q

 

[Charon 2]

Even Turkmen themselves are mixture of Iranic but to say they are only 15-20% Mongoloid is TOTTALLY WRONG.


No, they don't have only 15-20% Mongoloid admixture if we are talking about other parts of Turkmenistan.


They have from 22 - 56% Mongoloid


View attachment 89659

View attachment 89660

Even the Afghan Turkmen are 37 - 45% Mongoloid Mongoloid and have 45% haplogroup Q and Iran 42% Q

The average Mongoloid admixture of Turkmens in the Yunusbayev study is 15 %. I know that Turkmens from Afghanistan are more Mongoloid admixed but that doesn't seem to be the case of Iranian Turkmens and those from Turkmenistan

Haplogroups rarely tell anything about your about your genetic make-up. So classifiyng haplogroup Q as Mongoloid isn't valid.

 

[ManUNITEDglory]

The average Mongoloid admixture of Turkmens in the Yunusbayev study is 15 %. I know that Turkmens from Afghanistan are more Mongoloid admixed but that doesn't seem to be the case of Iranian Turkmens and those from Turkmenistan

Haplogroups rarely tell anything about your about your genetic make-up. So classifiyng haplogroup Q as Mongoloid isn't valid.

Yes but that was only 14 sample studies in southern part of Turkmenistan. There is no way a mere 15-20% Mongoloid can have so many Turkmen have strong mongoloid appearance. As you can see other large samples of Turkmen shows many in the 30-40% and 40-50% range, including few in the 50-60% Mongoloid range.


Average also makes up for the minority of the population, it maybe the most common but it doesn't make up for the overall majority of population but a significant minority, for example if 3 out of 10 samples are 15% Mongoloid, and if that was the most common number out of all the 10 samples tested than that's the average number but the other 7 samples can range from 15 - 58% Mongoloid. 2 samples can be 30% Mongoloid, 1 sample 50% Mongoloid.

You underestimate Mongoloid admixture in Turkmen.

Haplogroup Q reaches 67% in pure mongoloid looking Siberian Turks. Turkmen in some part of Turkmenistan having 20% of it including, Iranian Turkmen 42.6% and Afghan Turkmen 54% means they are mostly paternally Mongoloid at least.


GENETICS OF TURKMEN

[16][17 Genetic studies on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) restriction polymorphism confirmed that Turkmen were characterized by the presence of local Iranian mtDNA lineages, similar to the Eastern Iranian populations, but high male Mongoloid genetic component observed in Turkmens and Eastern Iranian populations with the frequencies of about 20%.[18] This most likely indicates an ancestral combination of Turkic and Iranian groups that the modern Turkmen have inherited and which appears to correspond to the historical record which indicates that various Iranian tribes existed in the region prior to the migration of Turkic tribes who are believed to have merged with the local population and imparted their language.



Here are some Iranian Turkmen