Talk:Caucasian Albania/Archive 2

POV removed

I have removed the following as it lacks sources and is most likely a POV: This allowed dynasties from the Armenian borderlands of Artsakh and Utik to extend their influence to the east—across the River Kura—and subordinate the Kingdom of Albania to them, in the end assimilating it politically and culturally. Parishan 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not, seems fine. Artaxiad 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It can't "seem fine" just because you believe it does. Statements like this one must either be accompanied by valid sources or removed completely. Parishan 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats why the fact template is there. Artaxiad 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite the sources you are refering too. You cannot restore edits by sock accounts without citing a source the reference is made too. The term Albania is Greek. See:

The Caucasian or Caspian Albanians (known as Aluank in Armenian, Albanoi in Greek, and Albani in Latin) inhabited an area of the eastern Transcaucasus between the Kura River and the Caucasus range, mostly within the present Azerbaijan republic and the southern parts of the Daghestan Autonomous Republic of the Russian Federated Republic.

Also from the same source:

It is interesting to note that both the Turkish Daghestan and the Latin Albania denote "mountainous land."

James Stuart Olson. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. ISBN 0313274975

Armenians did not call the country Albania, they called it Aluank or Agvank. If you have sources stating otherwise, please cite them. Grandmaster 07:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the other sourced name? Artaxiad 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced info. If you have a source that provides different info, please cite it here on talk, like I did. The line that you are restoring was added by a sock account, and the quote was not provided despite requests. I doubt that the Hewsen indeed says what the sock claimed. Grandmaster 09:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions are no good here, it is properly sourced. So it does work. Artaxiad 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Your info is not sourced, it's just a name of a book without an appropriate reference and page number, added by a sock puppet. Moses of Kalankatuyk is more credible, as it is a primary source, and it gives a more thorough explanation of the fact. Please do not revert edits that are obviously of better quality that what was there. Parishan 21:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad, please provide a quote from your source. I cited mine. Grandmaster 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

I am currently unable to edit but to those who do: Please remove the map presented until a better one can be found. It is a biased, amateurish and non-factual. User:TheKhazar 21 May 2007.

This issue has been previously raised. The map has no source, and it is unclear who made it and what sources were used, and to what time period the map relates. So far no answer has been given to those questions, so I'm removing the map. If anyone wishes to add it back, please show a source of it. Grandmaster 06:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, User:PANONIAN created the map based on (I believe) old maps of the area. We should probably invite him to discuss it before deciding to remove it. -- Aivazovsky 12:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's invite him. Grandmaster 12:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The map is incorrect as the borders of the Kingdom of Armenia in the East are not extending to the Caspian.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I left PANONIAN a note, let's see if he responds. -- Aivazovsky 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only time Armenia's borders extended to the Caspian was during the reign of Tigranes the Great. This map is accurate for much of history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The borders in the region were not something set in stone. Sources agree that borders were unstable and changing all the time. So if the map represents a certain time period, it should explicitly say so. Perhaps we need more than one map to show the borders of Albania in different times. In 387 Albania regained Artsakh and Utik, but the map does not show it. And if the map is made by someone, the person who created it should explain what sources he used to establish the borders. Grandmaster 04:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a map in the Hewsen atlas on Armenian history which shows Albania at its greatest extent (Artsakh and Utik included). It might be too big to scan, though. -- Aivazovsky 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is copyrighted too. But it can be used as a reference for somenone to make his own map. Grandmaster 11:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Same thing again??? I was asked about source for this map a year ago (if I remember correctly), and now again? Whatever... I have a large collection of more than 10,000 various maps in my computer, so this is the source for the map that I draw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Caucasus03333.jpg I found that map somewhere on the Internet (not remember where), and I just made a new public domain image based on that one. That is all that I can tell you (if that can help). PANONIAN 11:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would be good to know who made the original map and what period in history it refers to. Grandmaster 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we each create a map? I want to see a map from a reliable source, with a reference to a time period. Please remove this one as it is misleading and (pro-Armenia) biased.--User:TheKhazar 15:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to create a new map of Albania in Sasanian times based on this: [1] It is from the book titled: История Древнего мира т.3. Упадок древних обществ: в 3-ех т., Издание второе/Ред. И.М. Дьяконова, В. Д. Нероновой, И.С. Свенцицкой - М.:Издательство «Наука», 1983. It is edited by such authoritative scholars as Dyakonov. I would appreciate if someone could draw such a map. Grandmaster 11:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits

I rearranged the latest edits by Azerbaijani and incorporated them into the existing text, as they were partially repetitive. Nothing was deleted, just copyedited. This article still needs work, because the information is not arranged in chronological order. For example section on Christianity repeats the info in top sections, etc. Also added info on Pompey's invasion of Albania, Javanshir, Khazars, etc. Grandmaster 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall, your edits were good except I fixed the end of the Sassanid section. The Khazars invaded as allies of Heraclius during the last Byzantine Sassanid war. The Khazars merely raided the region and then left, to Heraclius' disappointment, who thought they would help out more. All the pre-war boundaries of both empires were reset after the peace treaty was signed. Albania was never fought over by the Khazars for territory, infact, the Sassanids did a very good job of keeping them out. You made it seem as though the Khazars invaded on their own and then conquered the territory and stayed. Thats not correct at all.Azerbaijani 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I assume you based it on this: In 628 there was a fresh invasion by the Khazars. The marzba@n Sema VÞtnas (GoÞnasp?) refused to answer the summons of their leader, Shath. The Catholicos Viroy presented himself at the Khazar camp established in Uti and came to an understanding with Shath, which did not prevent the latter from declaring himself lord of Albania and of Ùor (Movse@s, History 2.14, tr. pp. 92-100; cf. Trever, Ocherki, pp. 239-40). In the following year the Khazar leader levied a tax on the fishermen of the Kura and of the Araxes, and also on the merchants; this tax was fixed “in accordance with the landsurvey of the kingdom of Persia” and was paid in silver coinage (Movse@s, History 2.16, tr. p. 104). At about the same time, mention is made of Varaz Grigor, a member of the Mihrakan family, consecrated “prince of Albania” by the Catholicos Viroy; he was to send his son ÔuanÞe@r, whose deeds are the subject of legend and epic, to represent him in Ctesiphon at the court of Yazdegerd III (Movse@s, History 2.18-16, 28, 34; tr. pp. 109-26, 127-30, 142-45).

I thought you were talking about the last Byzantine Sassanid wars. We can add this information after what I added about the Byzantine Sassanid war, and its a good transition.

Grandmaster, how is this:

Christian Albania and Armenia were constant arena's of warfare between the Sassanians and the Byzantines. During the last of the Byzantine Sassanid wars, the Byzantines and their Khazar allies invaded the Caucasus, but after peace was made, returned the territory to the Sassanids. In 628, the Khazars invaded the region and the Khazar king declared himself lord of Albania, although the territory was still a part of the Sassanid empire and a member of the Mihranid family was made prince.

Acceptable?Azerbaijani 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But was it really part of Sasanid empire at the time? Albania had its own king, which means that it was not just a province of Persia. So it was rather a country under the Persian dominion than part of the Sasanian empire. As for Khazars, they very often acted as Byzantine allies, but acted on their own as well. For example, they invaded Albania after the murder of Javanshir, because Javanshir was a relative of Khazar king (he married his daughter) to punish the murderers. Iranica article does not say that Albania was part of Sasanian empire at that time. Later Khazars fought Arabs. I think we need to find a better wording to describe the situation. I restored my version for now, but let's discuss how we can improve it. Grandmaster 04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The term Shahanshah means King of Kings, this means that in many cases, provinces had their own kings, but there was always the Shahanshah, who was the king of all of these kings. Iranica includes all the information under the Sassanid period, what more does it have to say? There is no doubt that Caucasus Albania was a province/territory of the Sassanid Empire at the time of the Khazar invasion, because after the peace treaty between Byzantium and Iran, the pre-war boundaries were re-instated (the Khazars had left before the peace treaty was even signed). So Khazar invasion of 628, Albania was Sassanian territory, and after wards, as Iranica says, the Albanians simply paid tribute but the family was re-instated. There is nothing to suggests that the Khazars stayed in the territory or even kept it as a territory, and there is nothing to suggest that Albania was independent from the Sassanids. Also, why does it say "late 6th century". Albania was not contested at all in the late 500's AD. I'm going to bed.Azerbaijani 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sasanian provinces had marzpans (governors). Albania did not have one for the most of its history, but it was dependant on Sasanians, i.e. was their dominion, especially during the late Sasanian period. Most Albanian kings were either relatives of Sasanians or promoted by them. But still Albania was not just a province, it was a territory dominated by Persia. Grandmaster 06:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but in some cases the local monarchs or monarchs appointed were allowed to retain power locally, as long as they were subjects. Even the Achaemenids did this, even though they also had governors (satraps) for a lot of their provinces. Albania was a provinces, as Shapur I himself says, so yes, Albania was a provinces of the Sassanids.Azerbaijani 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Albania did indeed have a governor also: The king of Albania was one of the chief vassals of the King of Kings, but exercised only a semblance of authority and was accountable to the marzba@n who held the real civil, religious, and military power. The marzba@ns had their seat at P¿artaw, the capital, where in the 5th and 6th centuries they minted silver coinage (cf. Trever, Ocherki, p. 251). There appears also to have been a marzba@n of Ùor (Darband) in the reign of Yazdegerd II (Movse@s, History 2.2; tr. p. 66). It should follow from the inscriptions of Darband (see below) that at a certain period the financial administration of Albania was under the jurisdiction of the a@ma@rga@r (tax-collector) or AÚdurba@daga@n. (Iranica)

So obviously your wrong about Albania being independent but just under Sassanid domination.Azerbaijani 15:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a correction to my version and added that Byzantine and Khazars were allies. Grandmaster 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is about early Islamic times from Arran article in Iranica:

Arran remained essentially a frontier province, left to its native princes, who were led by the Mihranids (these last being accorded by the Arabs the title of Batariq or Patricius, cf. Yaqubi, II, p. 562), on condition of the payment of tribute to the Muslim exchequer. In practice, the princes of Arran in the time of Varaz-Trdat I (d. 705) paid tribute simultaneously to the Arabs, the Byzantines and the Khazars, according to Movses Dasxuranci (3.12; in regard to the first two powers, probably as a result of the treaty of 685 between Justinian II and Abd-al-Malek providing for the division between the two empires of the tribute of Armenia and Arran), an indication of the confused state of affairs in eastern Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this have to do with our discussion or is this for the Arab domination section?Azerbaijani 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is for Arab domination section. But things were pretty much the same during the late Sasanian period. Wars and invasions from all directions, and local rulers were making aliances with everyone to remain in ooser. Grandmaster 06:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I will add some info on early Hun and Khazar invasions, which started in the 3rd century A.D. Turkic presense in the area was quite old. Grandmaster 06:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between presence and simply raiding the region and moving on. The Huns also went on to invaded Eastern and central Europe, but they certainly had no presence in the region. I'm not sure about the Khazars, but the Huns themselves were more of a coalition of many different tribes by the time they reached Europe. Also, neither the Huns nor the Khazars ever settled in the Caucasus, but always stayed to the North. The Sassanids kept the Khazars out for centuries, and when the Khazars did break through, they simply raided and left. We can mention their brief raids into the region, but there certainly was no presence of either of these groups in the Caucasus at all.Azerbaijani 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I read an article from Minorsky who said that the region of Shaki had some Khazar population. I will find that. Grandmaster 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Albanian ruler Javanshir married the daughter of Khazar khagan. There was definitely certain presence of Khazar people at his court. Grandmaster 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, Minorsky describes situation in Albania about 820 AD and says:

West of Sharvan was situated Qabala, with a mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian prince.

V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.

Grandmaster 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How does that imply a presence? Rome was a pretty multi ethnic city, there may have been some Indian's there, but that does not imply an Indian presence. We're talking about Khazar presence in the region (lots of Khazars, Khazar military domination, etc...). The fact that Minorsky says including even some Khazars shows that Khazars in the region were rare.Azerbaijani 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But there were Khazars living there, and you wrote that no Turks lived in Albania. Also please cite Golden. Grandmaster 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really have to dig deep dont you? Its one city, in the north of Albania, and even Minorsky, in the context he puts in in, implies that it was rare for Khazars to be living in Albania (he says West of Sharvan was situated Qabala,with a mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian prince). Your logic is very very flawed. By that same logic that your using, we could say that there was an immense Persian presence in the region, and we could also let that imply certain things...Azerbaijani 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Turkic people lived there. They might have not been very numerous, but they lived in Albania. And can I see the quote from Golden? Grandmaster 06:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, by that logic, you could say Armenains lived in Caucasus Albania too (they probably did, and they were probably far more numerous than any Turkic tribes...). You could even say the same about Persians (who also probably far out numbered any Turkic tribe, if any). Should we also say that Armenians and Persians inhabited the region? I know that you know what undue weight is. Turkic tribes did not live in the region in any significant numbers, and if a few of them did settle it was a very rare occurrence. Guess what, I'm sure there were some Indian's in Rome also, but what difference did they make? None.

Here is the quote:

Turkic peneration 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 occured 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 (Peter Golden comments: 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. (385-386)Azerbaijani 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkic presence is important for one simple reason: the modern population of Azerbaijan is Turkic, so it is important to trace Turkic penetration back in history. Golden does not say that there was no Turkic presence, he just says that "there are no unambiguous references to permanent settlements". That does not mean that there was no Turkic presence. Minorsky says that Khazars lived in Sheki. We also know that Javanshir married Khazar princess. Grandmaster 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Roots

My comments is regarding genetic roots of Azerbaijanis. Perhaps, it is much more complex and claim that Azerbaijanis are purely antropologically similar to Iranians is wrong. I believe it was discussed at some other pages. For example, in the work of 4 scholars - Asadova P.S., Shneider Y.V., Shilnikova I.N., Zhukova O.V., "Genetic Structure of Iranian-Speaking Populations from Azerbaijan Inferred from the Frequencies of Immunological and Biochemical Gene Markers" published in Russian Journal of Genetics, Volume 39, Number 11, November 2003, pp. 1334-1342 it says "Comparison of the genetic structure of the populations examined with the other Iranian-speaking populations (Persians and Kurds from Iran, Ossetins, and Tajiks) and Azerbaijanis showed that Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan were more close to Azerbaijanis, than to Iranian-speaking populations inhabiting other world regions." This research [2] shows Azeris have much in common with Caucasian people - Georgians and Lezgis. So, Azerbaijanis comprise Caucasian, Turkic and Iranian genetics and no firm claim can be made about the one dominant gene.--Dacy69 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats for Azeris in the Republic of Azerbaijan, who are descendants of native Caucasian tribes. Azeris in Iran are descendants of Iranic tribes (Medes and Persians). Ancient scholars noted that the Medes had settled below the Araxes river and that the area above the Araxes river contained many peoples of various languages. Later Islamic sources mostly mention everyone below the Araxes river as being Persians. During the Seljuk period, both the native Caucasians and Iranics langauges were slowly replaced by Turkic dialects. In Iran, the Azeri maintained their previous language for as long as the 1700's before it finally went extinct. In the republic, some of those native tribes have still maintained their language. The term Azerbaijani and Azeri are a new terms invented a little over 100 years ago to describe everyone who spoke the same dialect of Turkic in the region (The Russians who invented it, did so to describe Turkic speakers who were Iranians by race/type). But Azeri's from the republic and Azeri from Iran are ethnically two different people who happen to speak the same dialect. Genetic tests conducted in Iran have now proved that with certainty. Iranian Azeri's have the same genetic markers as other Iranic peoples, while Azeris from the Republic of Azerbaijan group closer with Armenians and Georgians and other Caucasian peoples. Its like Tajiks and Persians from Iran, both speak Persian, but they are ethnically two different people. I dont see what any of this has to do with the subject though.Azerbaijani 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Iranian genetic research on this issue for obvious reason. But I can assume that Azeris in Iran have more genetic similarities with Iranians as they are mixing for centuries. But Azeris are distinct group of people - in north and south, different from Iranians. Language assimilation has certain patterns - people acquire usually language of dominant people and state, not vise versa. There was no stable Turkic state in territories populated now by Azeris in Iran. If Arabs did not make Iranians speak their language, needless to say bout Turks. Azeris is distinct Oguz affiliated people even though ethnonim was invented in 1936 under Stalin. There is a bunch of new ethnonims, like Belgiums and Austrians.--Dacy69 16:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The genetic studies were not conducted by Iran, they were conducted by an Iranian Azeri working for Cambridge University. The Iranian government had nothing to do with it. Iranian Azeri's are descendants of Iranics (infact most scholars think all Azeri's are descendants of Iranics, which is wrong, because they assume all Azeri's are the same people. Azeri's of the republic of mostly descendants of Caucasians, while Azeri's in Iran are Iranics). A theory that I have read regarding why the language was replaced, was that the Turkic at that time was not very much different from Persian other than it was easier to learn, which is why the common people picked up faster. Again, the language replacement did not happen over night, it took hundreds of years (for Iran, it took until the 1700's) and for the Republic of Azerbaijan Turkification was never fully completed, as there are still people present who speak the native languages of the region. Also, people do not inherit the language of the dominant people or state. Turks were never dominant in any of the regions they now inhabit, their language was simply easier to learn for the common people and thus replaced Persian in most parts of Central Asia and some parts of Iran, because Persian was more a language for the upper class. The Seljuk rulers of Iran themselves spoke Persian. The fact that the Oghuz left almost no genetic trace in Anatolia or the Caucasus shows that Turkic tribes were never the dominant people in these regions, they were the minority, a very small minority at that, usually consisting of armies.Azerbaijani 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have different opinion about language replacement. definitely, it is subjectiv opinion that Turkic language is more easy to learn than Persian or let's say Caucasian or Greek. I know many people disagree. And I would be happy to see genetic studies by third parties, non-Iranian, non-Azeri, as I produced.--Dacy69 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats just one theory that I've read, I'm sure there are many, but the fact of the matter is that that the Caucasian people living above the Aras and Iranic people living below the Aras had their languages replaced over a period of hundreds of years, and that in the late 1800's, the Russians decided to call all Turkic speakers who were Iranians by race/type Azerbaijani's (they included the people above the Aras as well). Then during Soviet times, they changed it to Azeri.

Cambridge University (non-Iranian and non-Azeri) isnt good enough for you? Too bad, you dont get to make the decisions about sources here, a Cambridge University study is very respectable.

All of this misinformation is due to Soviet propaganda. The Soviets had a policy of historical revisionism to cause ethnic tensions in places they wanted to bring under their influence. A lot of the Azeri and Azerbaijan matter is due to Soviet propaganda. The term Azerbaijani was never an ethnic term, it was a linguistic term. Iranian Azeri's and Azeri's in the republic are two completely different people, as Persians and Tajiks are two completely different people, they just happen to speak the same dialect of a language.

This is not a forum, this subject has nothing to do with this article. Take this via e-mail or end the discussion here.Azerbaijani 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is should be done by third party. Armenian, Iranian or Azerbaijani professor at Oxford or Harvard might be biased as well.--Dacy69 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge is a third party source...What are you talking about?Azerbaijani 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only Soviets but former Shah and current Iranian regime also made input to that discord. First it was propaganda about Aryan and all this kind-of-Nazi stuff, and then latter more complex human and minority rights. In the beginning of the 20 century (when Persia was ruled by Turkic Qadjars) nobody cared about ethnic division. And nationalism everwhere (Balkan, Cauacasus, Iran, Middle East, etc) is relatively modern phenomenon arrived with nation-state. As a matter of fact, even in the 1970s, as I remember, nobody in Soviet Azerbaijan dared speak about nationalism and any kind of outreach with Azeris in Iran. --Dacy69 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Shah never used any propaganda. And why dont you read about the term Aryan, it has nothing to do with Nazism. Iranians and Indians have used that term for thousands of years, Iranian actually means Aryan in a sense. And actually, ethnic nationalism came about with European colonialism. The Russians, British, French, etc... brought racial and ethnic nationalism all over the world (why do you think we have the Israeli Palestinian conflict, or the Hutu Tutsi conflict), it has nothing to do with the Shah or the Qajars or anyone. And do you know why no one in Soviet Azerbaijan dared to be nationalistic? Its because the Soviets wanted nationalism only to the USSR, they crushed nationalistic movements in many parts of their territories and satellite countries. But at the same time, the Soviets were masters at brainwashing the public with propaganda. Many Azeri's in the republic of Azerbaijan actually believe that Azerbaijan was split up between Iran and Russia, even though in the treaty between the two countries there is no mention of any part of Azerbaijan being ceded to Russia...the list continues, many of that historical revisionist propaganda is still thought of as fact in the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Known to you British source of 1863 speak about division of Azerbaijan.--Dacy69 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Known to you also is that some Europeans also considered the entire area between the black see all the way to the Caspian Sea as Armenia too, does that mean its true? Yes or no? Are we to believe the few sources rather than the overwhelming majority sources? If so, then I guess you should admit that Armenia encompassed the entire territory of the present day Republic of Azerbaijan, are you will to do that? No double standards please. Its the majority of the sources that count, and in the case of the name Azerbaijan, you and I both know what the majority of the sources say.Azerbaijani 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not known to me as reliable as I know for sure that the source I am talking about is first hand account of the person served in Tebriz. Though I know that the claim about Great Armenia is popular among Western scholars (and it might be in time of Tigran II Armenia stretched eastward, covering also some pieces of modern Iran). Indeed, we also know that one time Persia possessed entire Middle East, so did Romans.

Aw, the double standards come out. When speaking of Azerbaijan, you hold on to the few sources that support you, but when similar sources say things about Armenia including the territory of Azerbaijan Republic, they are all of a sudden wrong or unreliable or propaganda, or bla bla bla... The sources I'm talking about are from the early 20th century, and they say Armenia is a country from the Black sea to the Caspian sea. Answer the question Dacy, its a simple yes or no, is the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan Armenian land based on the few sources that say Armenia went all the way to the Caspian sea? Its a yes or no question, either you say yes, or no, I dont want a long response, if you give me a long response. This is not a forum, and since you refuse to end the discussion, I will, but I'll be expecting your yes or no response to my question.Azerbaijani 21:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't attribute to me words which I did not say. May I ask you - how old are you? --Dacy69 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, interesting answer to a simple yes or no question,I think you gave me your opinion just fine without actually answering it. I'm done with this conversation, now both you and I are on the same page with regards to the name Azerbaijan. Good talk.Azerbaijani 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You just brought quote about antropological similiarities. I agree, this article about Cauacsian Albania.--Dacy69 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Grandmaster asked for it. Take this via e-mail or end the discussion, this is not a forum.Azerbaijani 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Caucasus Albania merged with Armenia

Iranica says that the territories of the eastern Caucasus were reunited with Armenia under one governor, so I added the information in:

Half-way through the 7th century, under the caliphate of ¿Ot¯ma@n, the Arabs invaded Albanian territory and the eastern Caucasus and took possession of Paythakaran (Baylaqa@n), P¿artaw (Bardòa¿a), Shakashe@n, Kabala (Kapaghak), ˆerva@n, Shaporan (ˆa@bera@n), and Ùor (Darband); Aran was to be reunited with Armenia under a single governor.Azerbaijani 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sasanian domination

The claim that "the king had no real power and most civil, religious, and military authority lay with the Sassanid marzban (military governor) of the territory" is not accurate. Iranica does not says so, so it is an original research. According to another source, Albania was a vassal state, but not satrapy:

In the third century AD, Albania became a vassal state of the new Sassanid Persian Empire. During the fourth century, Christianity spread among the Caucasian Albanians, as it had among the Armenians and Georgians. The rise of the Christian Roman Empire, with its new capital in the East at Constantinople (Byzantium), further complicated the relations between the the Christian Albanian Kingdom and the Sassanid dynasty. By the fifth century, the Christianized kingdom of Albania, in conjunction with the Armenian and Georgian kingdoms, revolted against Sassanid rule. The Sassanids were able to restore their suzerainty over Albania. The weakening of the Sassanid Empire by its wars with the Byzantines and later the Muslim Arabs in the seventh century gave the Albanian kingdom the opportunity to reassert its full independence.

James Stuart Olson. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. ISBN 0313274975

Albania was ruled by its own king, and Barda was not a seat of satrap either. There's a big difference between "vassal state" and satrapy. The article about satrapy is also an OR. Grandmaster 06:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, I suggest you make your other article a redirect to this one. First of all, it is an original research, as Caucasian Albania has always been ruled by its own king and not satrap, therefore it was a kingdom, and not satrapy. The sources you refer to also don’t support your claim. Albania was a vassal state to Sasanians, and not a satrapy ruled by a governor. So let’s merge your new article about “Albanian satrapy” into this one. Grandmaster 11:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned as a satrapy by Shapur I. The article is not original research, its all based on the Iranica article. I think its your POV and OR that wants to maintain that it was its own kingdom...Azerbaijani 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know where you get the notion that Albania was independent when Iranica says it had a governor who had all of the power (the king had no power) and Shapur's very on inscription says it was a province...Azerbaijani 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says nothing about satrap. And Shapur, who called himself king of kings, lists all the dependent territories. See the source that I quoted on top, Albania was a vassal state. Grandmaster 04:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is from the Britannica article that you refered to:

Next in the hierarchy came the few remaining hereditary vassals, such as the kings of Iberia (now Georgia) in the Caucasus, and the chief nobles of the empire, among whom the Waraz, Suren, and Karen families retained their prominent position from Parthian times.

Albania was the same as Iberia, it was a vassal state ruled by its king. Grandmaster 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good original research Grandmaster.Azerbaijani 13:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Check the source on top of this section. It is sourced info. Also your own source lists Iberia as a province, but says that the kings of Georgia were hereditary vassals. Clearly, that was the case not only with Iberia, but also with Albania, as the source that I quoted attests. Grandmaster 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your making an assumption based on another source, thats OR.Azerbaijani 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I just refer to that source. Grandmaster 13:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even the Cambridge history of Iran considered it a province, calling it Shahr of Arran (Shahr meaning province, thus, province of Arran, Arran of course was the Persian name for Albania).Azerbaijani 13:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain why was Albania ruled by its own kings, and not Persian governors, if it was just a province? It makes sense when it is a vassal state, but provinces don’t have their own kings. And vassal state is a sourced info that cannot be suppressed. And even Brtitannica makes it clear that some of the territories listed as provinces were vassal states. Grandmaster 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The King had absolutely no power at all...Also, the later dynasty of Albania was according to several versions, relatives of the Sassanids I have already explained to you that the Iranian kings held the title of "King of Kings" for a reason, to show that they were the kings of all other kings.Azerbaijani 16:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

But who says that king had no power? Original research again. If he had noi power, why he was not replaced with a governor? I don't think this issue is worth further argument, as I said before vassal state is a sourced info. See top of the section. Grandmaster 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says the king had no power. Iranica clearly says that all religious, civil, and military authority was in the hands of the governor.Azerbaijani 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Grandmaster 17:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its posted above. The King was even held accountable to the governor, which means that the governor was more of a "king" than the actual king of Albania.Azerbaijani

It still says that king of Albania was a vassal to the Persian king, i.e. Albania was a vassal state, and not a satrapy. So your other article is stiil an original research, it should be merged into this one. Grandmaster 10:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It says the king, it doesnt say Albania is a vassal (or maybe I'm wrong, does the Iranica article say that Albania is a vassal? I might have missed it somewhere). Your making POV conclusions (which, OR) based on a statement. Ofcourse the king of ALbania would have had to be a vassal, because otherwise he wouldnt have even been king. However, the territory was not a vassal, as it had no authority of its own. It was controlled by a governor.Azerbaijani 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If king was vassal, so was the territory that he ruled. If a territory had its own king, it definitely was not just a province. Plus, check the source that I quoted on top of this section, it says Albania was a vassal state. We cannot discard an authoritative source. Grandmaster 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The King had no power. Infact, the governor of the province was higher up than the king himself, as the king was held accountable to the governor. That isnt vassal like at all. In a vassal, the territory retains some form of independence. This was not the case in Albania, as its monarchy had no control over anything basically. The control was in the hands of the governor of the province.Azerbaijani 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Use common logic, Azerbaijani. If it was a kingdom, it could not be a province. It is either of the two, and since it had a king, it was a kingdom and a vassal state. No one denies that it was subjected to Sasanids, but it is clear from all sources that it was a vassal state. Grandmaster 05:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm using common sense and logic, because a province having a governor who holds almost all of the power absolutely does not make the territory a kingdom. Iranica clearly says that the King of Albania had no power and had to answer to the governor.Azerbaijani 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It still was a kingdom, wasn't it? Grandmaster 05:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a province, with a governor, under the control of the Sassanids. This isnt a game. I'm going to bed.Azerbaijani 05:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Provinces don't have kings. Check the source: In the third century AD, Albania became a vassal state of the new Sassanid Persian Empire. I added this info to the article. Good night. Grandmaster 05:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This isnt a game Grandmaster, it was a province because it had a governor that held all of the power. I looked through your edits and a lot of it was POV. You removed the part about how the king had no power and the territory had a governor. You put in a POV part about how the Khazars settled in some areas, etc...Azerbaijani 15:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets review the facts:

1) The territory had a governor who held all military, religious, and civil power.
2) The king was a subject of the governor, and had no power.
3) The Cambridge History of Iran even describes the territory as a province (Shahr (province) of Albania)

How can you refute any of this?

Regarding your changes on Khazars:

Khazars settled in some parts of the Albanian kingdom, such as Shaki, although the Turkic presence did not significantly alter the ethnic make-up of the region.

You completely distorted that source.

1) Minorsky makes it clear that Khazars in the area was very rare, no where does he say "in some parts of Albania...."
2) The source I brought says that there is no evidence to show permanent settlement by the Khazars.

Please put your nationalism and political views aside. This is not the place for POV and OR editing, this is a place for facts. You removed sourced information that you dont like, and replace it with distorted information. Respect Wikipedia and its policies please.Azerbaijani 15:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I only added sourced info. According to the sources Caucasian Albania was a vassal state and their king was one of the vassals of the Sasanian king. I added that in, and kept the info about the Persian marzban. I don’t think there’s anything you can object to, this info is well referenced. As for Khazars, Minorsky says that they lived in Shaki, which was one of the regions of Albania. As nomads they might not have permanent settlements, but they lived in Albania and since Javanshir was married to a Khazar princess one can suppose that there were Khazars at the Albanian court as well. I’m not adding that because that would be an OR, but what I added is sourced, and I stated that Turkic presence was not sufficient to significantly affect ethnic make-up of Albania. Also, accusations of nationalism are a violation of WP:AGF, please mind the rules. Grandmaster 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arran

I added in the intro that Caucasus Albania also went by the name Arran. This is significant because we later on see titles such as Arranshah and the name Arran continues in use to this day, even in the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added the Parthian name, but I'm not sure if the spelling is Ardhan or Ardan, although I'm pretty sure the spelling is Ardhan.Hajji Piruz 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative names go after the title name, not at the end of the paragraph. I Also removed a statement which has not been sourced since June.Hajji Piruz 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Settling this once and for all

Grandmaster, you need to put your nationalistic, POV, and OR editing behind you. You spent this entire time denying the facts and then you made a lot of changes, removing or distorting a lot of sourced information, without consensus and all based on your own POV.

We're settling this once and for all.

Regarding Albania as a province:

1. The Cambridge History of Iran calls Albania a province.
2. Primary source #1: The high priest Kirder, thirty years later, gave in his inscriptions a more explicit list of the provinces of Aneran, including Armenia, Georgia, Albania, and Balasagan, together with Syria and Asia Minor. Iranica
3. Primary source #2: The list of provinces given in the inscription of Ka'be-ye Zardusht defines the extent of the empire under Shapur, in clockwise geographic enumeration: (1) Persis (Fars), (2) Parthia, (3) Susiana (Khuzestan), (4) Maishan (Mesene), (5) Asuristan (southern Mesopotamia), (6) Adiabene, (7) Arabistan (northern Mesopotamia), (8) Atropatene (Azerbaijan), (9) Armenia, (10) Iberia (Georgia), (11) Machelonia, (12) Albania (eastern Caucasus), (13) Balasagan up to the Caucasus Mountains and the Gate of Albania (also known as Gate of the Alans), (14) Patishkhwagar (all of the Elburz Mountains), (15) Media, (16) Hyrcania (Gorgan), (17) Margiana (Merv), (18) Aria, (19) Abarshahr, (20) Carmania (Kerman), (21) Sakastan (Sistan), (22) Turan, (23) Mokran (Makran), (24) Paratan (Paradene), (25) India (probably restricted to the Indus River delta area), (26) Kushanshahr, until as far as Peshawar and until Kashgar and (the borders of) Sogdiana and Tashkent, and (27), on the farther side of the sea, Mazun (Oman)

Regarding the powers of the king of Albania

1. Albania even had a governor (marzban): The king of Albania was one of the chief vassals of the King of Kings, but exercised only a semblance of authority and was accountable to the marzban who held the real civil, religious, and military power. The marzbans had their seat at Partaw, the capital, where in the 5th and 6th centuries they minted silver coinage (cf. Trever, Ocherki, p. 251). There appears also to have been a marzban of Ùor (Darband) in the reign of Yazdegerd II (Movses, History 2.2; tr. p. 66). It should follow from the inscriptions of Darband (see below) that at a certain period the financial administration of Albania was under the jurisdiction of the a@ma@rga@r (tax-collector) or AÚdurba@daga@n. Iranica

Regarding the Khazars

1. The quote from Golden: Turkic peneration 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.
2. Here is the full Minorsky quote: The southern ban of the Kur seems to have depended on the Mihranids, but the situation here was unstable. Beyond the Kur, we find the considerable Muslim principality of Sharvan, a survival from Sasanian times, but now ruled by the famly of the Yazidids of teh Shaybani tribe. West of the Sharvan was situated Qabala, with mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian privnce.

Looking over Grandmaster's edits

1. We see Grandmaster remove the term Greater Armenia (for reasons unclear), we see him insert that Albania was a vassal instead of a province (for reasons unclear), we see him completely distort the Golden quote into something its not, while still keeping Golden there as a source (for reasons unclear), we also see him insert a complete POV statement that the Khazars settled in some parts Albania (completely unsourced, as no source says such a thing) and the Minorsky quote is talking about Islamic times, not even during the Sassanian period. See this diff of his edit: [3]

• Why did you take out the term Greater Armenia?
• Albania was a province, not a vassal, according The Cambridge History of Iran and two primary sources. We also see a description of the powers of the king of Albania and the marzban (governor) of Albania, which says that the governor of the territory had all the power and that the king was even a subject of the governor.
• See the Golden and Minorsky quotes above, Grandmaster has clearly violated Wikipedia NOR and NPOV.

1. What we see here is Grandmaster doing original research and POV editing. He is himself trying to interpret primary sources, and he is distorting the words of scholars.

Azerbaijani 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I only added sourced info. Quote: In the third century AD, Albania became a vassal state of the new Sassanid Persian Empire. I added that in, do you agree that this is what the source says? Then what is your problem? Your own quote says that The king of Albania was one of the chief vassals of the King of Kings, i.e. he ruled a vassal state, as per the previous source. As for Golden, he says that there were no settlements of Khazars in the region, but Minorsky says that they lived in Shaki. I added that as well, as nomadic people may not have permanent settlements, but they still lived in the region. Grandmaster 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And stop your personal attacks, comment on content, and not the contributor. Grandmaster 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comparing your source to two primary sources and the Cambridge History of Iran? The king was a vassal, but Albania was not, thats why it had a governor and thats why the primary sources of the time call Albania a province, not a vassal. You completely distorted the Golden and Minorsky quotes. Minorsky is talking about Islamic times and Golden makes it clear that Khazars did not settle permanently. Minorsky, in the context that he puts it, also makes it clear that Khazars in the area was a very rare thing. You clearly distorted both quotes into something that suited your POV. Also, why did you remove the term Greater Armenia from the article? I just dont get that one at all...you also removed references to Armenia on the Mihranids article. I'm pretty sure its safe to say that there is some nationalism in your edits.

Also, I never personally attacked you, I said your edits were POV, OR, and nationalistic. I commented clearly on your edits, not on you. Azerbaijani 05:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How could the king be a vassal, and the state that he ruled not? Where is the logic? Do you agree that the king of Albania was the vassal of the Sasanian king? I removed Armenia because it was not a vassal state like Albania and Iberia, at least we have no info about its status. I did not remove Armenia elsewhere in the article. And your comments are personal attack, stop it Another accusation of nationalistic editing or anything of the kind, and I will have to ask for the admin intervention. Grandmaster 05:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You again ignore the main issues, I wonder why. You ignore the two primary sources and the Cambridge History of Iran, and you ignore what Iranica says about the King and the governor (no where does it say that Albania was a vassal, of course the king had to be a vassal since he was even allowed to exist as a king, You can read the definitions of "vassal" here: [4], the king being a vassal is completely correct, however, it implies nothing about Albania itself). Once you read those definitions of vassal, you will understand that the king was indeed a vassal, because his superior was the governor, he himself held no power.

You also still have not addressed the distortion of the Golden and Minorsky quotes. Also, don't user admin intervention as a threat please. I never personally attacked you, I've been commenting on your edits this whole time, you know this. I'm going to bed.Azerbaijani 06:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge and Iranica are not primary sources, they are secondary ones. You should check what primary and secondary sources are. And I quoted another secondary source: In the third century AD, Albania became a vassal state of the new Sassanid Persian Empire. It is sourced info, it should remain in the article. As for Minorsky and Golden, I commented above. Grandmaster 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranica is citing primary source, it simply paraphrased it. Furthermore, both Iranica and Cambridge blow your sources out of the water, especially when backed up by primary sources.

And no, you are avoiding all of the issues because its evident your wrong.Azerbaijani 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense to say that Albania was a vassal province? Nikola 20:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesnt really make sense. I have brought 3 sources, which are all interpretations of primary source by reliable authoritative secondary sources, which say Albania was a province. It was a province, and as per Wikipedia's rules, the sourced more reliable sourced information must be presented.Hajji Piruz 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lets review again, I made it clear what it means to be a vassal king, it simply means that the king is a subject to a higher authority, and that is 100% because the marzban was the one with all of the power. Iranica is correct in saying the king was a vassal king.

• You have still avoided telling me why you are trying to use Minorsky comment on the Islamic Caucasus under the Sassanian part and you still have avoided answering why you distorted both the Golden and Minorsky qoutes.

• You have so far rejected two primary sources and the Cambridge History of Iran, as well as Iranica.Azerbaijani 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly Grandmaster, at the same time your here rejecting primary sources, on another talk page your lecturing others about how they shouldnt reject primary sources: Raffi is a 19th century primary source, and so is Mirza Adigezal. 2 primary sources, Armenian and Azerbaijani, confirm that 4 out of 5 meliks were migrants to the region, yet you reject them and replace the info with claims of some Ulubabian, who cannot be taken seriously.

Whats that about? How can you justify rejecting the primary sources here?Hajji Piruz 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you cited no primary sources, second, primary sources do not prevail over secondary and tertiary ones, and third, I rejected Ulubabian for one simple reason – he is not third party as required by the rules. Grandmaster 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I cited two primary sources. Furthermore, you have still avoided answer the main questions posed to you. I think the POV and OR is pretty apparent.Hajji Piruz 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge and Iranica are secondary sources, not primary ones. And they both do not support what you say. I also cited my sources, so it is OK. Grandmaster 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. This discussion is going no where. I'm going to make the changes and source them. You have distorted both Minorsky and Golden, and you refuse to accept what Iranica is while on another article your lecturing others on Iranica and primary sources.Hajji Piruz 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes as per all my comments above. According to Shapurs inscription and Kirdir, Albania was a province. Also, as I have stated before, the Minorsky quote is about Islamic times, it has nothing to do in the Sassanids section.Hajji Piruz 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced info. Vassal state has a source, you cannot delete it because you don't like it. Grandmaster 06:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You just removed sourced info! LOL. You are the one removing sourced information because you dont like it, its pretty evident now. I have already told you this, Minorsky is talking about Islamic times, not Sassanid times, so why do you insist on manipulating what he says? Grandmaster, you're wrong here, you know it, thats why you are avoiding answering all the points I made.

I have brought two sources, one from Britannica and one from Iranica which say that it was a province. Thats not good enough for you?

Here is another one (source: Wiesehofer, Josef. Ancient Persia. published 1996, page 184):

"And I [Shapur I] posses the lands [provinces; Greek ethne]: Fars [Persis], Pahlav [Parthia], Huzestan [Khuzistan], Meshan [Maishan, Mesene], [Asorestan [Mesopotamia], Nod-Ardakhshiragan [Adiabene], Arbayestan [Arabia], Adurbadagan [Atropatene], Armen [Armenia], Virozan [Iberia], Segan [Machelonia], Arran [Albania], Balasagan up to the Caucasus and to the 'gate of the Alans' and all of Padishkwar[gar] [[the entire Elburz chain = Tabaristan and Gelan (?)], Mad [Media], Gurgan [Hyrcania], Marv [Margiana], Harey [Aria], and all of Abarshahr [all the upper (=eastern, Parthian) provinces], Kerman [Kirman], Sakastan, Turgistan, Makuran, Pardan [Paradene], Hind [Sind] and Kushanshahr all the way to Pashkibur [Peshavar?] and to the borders of Kashgaria, Sogdia and Chach [Tashken] and of the sea-coast Mazonshahr [Oman]."

Remember, primary sources can only be interpreted by secondary scholarly sources, and now I have brought you three. This author also interprets it as provinces. So now we have Britannica, Iranica (marzban info and Kirdir info), and Wiesehofer.Hajji Piruz 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The info about Albania being a vassal state is sourced. As for Khazars, this is from Minorsky, the source is in Russian, the same one that Ali used in Shirvanshah article:

Позже главные вторжения с севера велись хазарами — народом, который, вероятно, относился к определенной группе тюркских племен или во всяком случае включал в себя значительное число других тюркских родов. Во время борьбы Ираклия с Хосровом Парвизом хазары были союзниками византийского императора, и в 626г. Ираклий встретил Зиэбеля (Силзибула?), племянника хакана, у стен осажденного Тифлиса. Византийцы не расширяли своих владений в Восточном Закавказье, большая часть которого оставалась во власти хазар до прихода арабов. Это подтверждает Баладзури (стр. 194), который, в частности, говорит о Кабала (на восток от Шакки) как об округе, принадлежащем хазарам или занятом ими (***). Одну группу хазар Марван б. Мухаммад поселил между Самуром и Шабараном. Другая группа мирных хазар появилась в Шамкуре (Шамхор) в 240г.х./854 (см. Баладзури, стр. 203). Опустошительные хазарские набеги при халифах Хишаме (ок. 112г.х./730) и Харун ар-Рашиде (183г.х./788, — см. Табари, II/3, 1530 и III, 648) также должны были увеличить число хазар в Закавказье (См. D. M. Dunlop, The history of the Jewish Khazars, Princeton, 1954). [5]

Minosrky says that most of Eastern Transcaucasia was under the Khazar rule before the arrival of Arabs. This is confirmed by Baladhuri, who, for instance, talks about Kabala (to the east of Shaki) as an area that belonged to Khazars or was occupied by them. One group of Kazars was settled by Marvan b. Muhammed between Samur and Shabaran. Another group of peaceful Khazars appeared in Shamkur in 240/854 (see Baladhuri). Devastating Khzar invasions during the reign of caliphs Hishan and Harun ar-Rashid were also ought to increase the number of Khazars in Transcaucasia. Grandmaster 09:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So is the information about it being a province. I have three sources, you only have one. First off, what does the Islamic period have to do with the Sassanid period? Also, raids mean nothing. I can also bring sourced information that say Iranica nomads raided and settled in the region too.Hajji Piruz 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky talks about Khazar settlements in pre-Islamic times. As for the sources, Iranica also says that Albanian king was a vassal to Sasanians. --Grandmaster 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is the definition of vassal? I posted it. A vassal is simply someone who is below in status to someone else. The king was a vassal, as the marzban was the man with all of the power.Hajji Piruz 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But there was a king, right? I.e. Albania was a kingdom, not province. Grandmaster 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a governor right (a governor who had all the power)? I.e. Albania was a province, not a kingdom.

Grandmaster, I have brought several sources. You are just sticking to your once source and making POV interpretations. Also, I want you to quote Minorsky in full in the article.Hajji Piruz 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there was a governor does not eliminate the fact that Albania remained a kingdom with its own king, who according to Iranica was a vassal of the Sasanian king. Somehow you completely disregard the fact that Albania was a kingdom and as such could not be a province, but was a vassal state. i.e. the state that was under the Persian dominion. Your sources also mention that some of the areas named as provinces were in fact states ruled by their own princely dynasties. Grandmaster 10:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Minorsky, I don't think that we need to add large quotes. He says that Khazars settled in Qabala and Shaki, and I added this info to the article. Their presence did not significantly affect the ethnic make-up of the region, and it is also stated. Grandmaster 10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should add the entire quote to settle the Minorsky dispute. You've had no problem with long quotes before.Hajji Piruz 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Albania being a province, I have brought 3 sources. Grandmaster, please do not make POV and OR edits.Hajji Piruz 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the full Minorsky quote to atleast settle one of the issues. Let the reader interpret what Minorsky says. I also added both that your source considered it a vassal while Iranica, Britannica, and Wiesehofer considered it a province. Both sides are now presented and the issue should be settled.Hajji Piruz 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your sources only say that Albania was included in the list of provinces, but they do not actually say that it was a province. On the contrary, they say that it was not and it was a vassal state. A quote from Josef Wiesehofer, right after the list you mentioned he says:

If we compare this enumeration with the list of dignitaries from the reign of Narseh in their territorial relations and with the – albeit incomplete – classification of parts of the empire by Kirdir (from the reign of Bahram II), we notice that they have much in common, but that there are also certain differences, i.e. changes. For Shapur we find that certain regions were entrusted as `kingdoms' to the sons of the “king of kings” and other dynasts (MP shah; Greek basileus). These regions lay at the borders of the empire and, in their geographical and political characteristics, must have been a heritage from the late Parthian period, where (in most cases?) Sasanian princes had now taken the places of the previous powerful “petty kings”. Thus Shapur – again in connection with offerings and fires - mentions his following sons: Hormizd-Ardashir (the later Hormizd I) as `great king of Armenia' and thereby crown prince, Shapur as `King of Meshan', Narseh (the later `king of kings') as `king of Hind, Sakastan and Turgistan up to the seashore' or `king of the Sakae', and Bahram (the later Bahram I) as `king of Gelan'. In addition, there were Ardashir, king of Adiabene, Ardashir of Kerman and Hamazasp of Iberia. In its only partially preserved § 92, the Paikuli inscription also lists `kings' (whose names are not specified) of Kushan(shahr), Choresmia, Pardan, Makran, Gurgan, Balasagan, Albania and Segan (see Map 4), as well as two royal individuals called Razgurd and Pand-Farrag (without specifying their kingdoms), and finally the Armenian Tirdad, the king of the Lakhmids, Amr, and his namesake from Edessa. Bear in mind, however, that the NPi does not describe all these kings as subjects of the Sasanian ruler. In § 93 of the same inscription, the enumeration of minor (? and/or local dignitaries?; MP xvaday: `lord') ends with a King Malukh, who does not seem to have ruled in Iran. The relationship of the local rulers with the `king of kings' is usually referred to by scholars as `vassalage'. This term, which applies to medieval Europe, incorporates the threefold condition of the oath of allegiance and military support on the one hand, and enfeoffinent with usufruct of landed property on the other, conditions that, due to the lack of sources, cannot be confirmed for the period under discussion. A second territorial unit after the `kingdoms' is described by the word shahr, which in this case may perhaps be translated as `province'.

As you can see, Albania was not "shahr"/province, but it was kingdom, i.e. a vassal state of Sasanians. Grandmaster 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back later to discuss this, I'm busy at the moment.Hajji Piruz 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

information is copied from http://www.bakililar.az/ca/eng/history/albanianarchitectureofkarabagh.html

Introduction

Hajji Piruz, why do you keep removing the introduction which has references to Minorsky, etc. I don't see the point as the text reflects the same information, although provides more references and is better formatted. Atabek 15:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative names come after the title name, not at the end of the paragraph. You can insert your information, thats not the problem, but the alternative names should go after the title name. Also, unless there is a source, the statement about the tribes that existed in the region should not be reinserted, as there was a tag on it for over a month and no source was ever presented.Hajji Piruz 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Khazars again

Monorsky says that Khazars were probably settled in Qabala, see the quote from Caucasica IV:

In the first edition of I. Hauqal, 254, there stood ***, and in my article “Musafiri” in E.I. I took *Jurzan wa Saghiyan for villages Gurzivan and Saghiyan (?), lying to the west of Shamakhi. However, the designation of the prince as ' Ibn-Musa ', without his personal name, would be strange. The second edition gives *****, which suggests the reading *Vashaqan B. Musa, i.e. probably Vachagan, a name popular among the princes of Arran. But what of J.rz (which de Goeje restored as *J.rzan)? Normally it would refer to Georgia (Jurz) but Marzuban never penetrated so far as Georgia, and *Vachagan is a non-Georgian name. As a mere surmise, one might think in our case not of *** but of *** though not in its direct sense of the Khazar kingdom, but in the local use, as applied to the town of Qabala lying between Sharvan (v.s. 1.) and Shakki (v.s. 2.). This was a place where Khazars were probably settled, for Baladhuri (194) says wa madina Qabala wa-hiya al-Khazar. This suggestion is purely tentative, but it would be strange if Qabala, mentioned by Masudi (ii, 68) as a separate principality, were unrepresented in I. Hauqal's document.

Grandmaster 07:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minorsky is speaking of Islamic times, is he not? I believe we have discussed this issue before. The context is what matters.Hajji Piruz 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He does not say when they settled there. He just says that they lived there in Islamic times, but it is not clear when exactly they moved to that area. Grandmaster 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, he is talking about Islamic times. On top of that, he says "probably", which means that its also likely that they were not even settled there at all. We cannot assume anything other than that, otherwise we would be committing original research.Hajji Piruz 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed a quote added by a suspicious account. I see no relevance of the modern conflicts to the historic Albania, otherwise we will have to add info about Mnatsakanian and others, which is going to distract from the actual purpose of this article. Grandmaster 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the same quote readded by Moosh88 without any explanation. I see no need to turn this article into the description of revisionist schools in Armenia and Azerbaijan. This topic may need a separate article. There's a very detailed article of Robert Hewsen, where he criticizes both Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars for making politically motivated interpretations of the History of C.Albania, but modern politics have nothing to do with ancient history. Grandmaster 10:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The article Caucasian Albanians seems to a POV fork reference one source. The content of the article is not substantial and can be merged as a paragraph into the Caucasian Albania article. Atabek 15:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it here. The sources may need to be merged here as well. John Vandenberg 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted anon edits, distorting the original sources. Grandmaster (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

added full references from r. hewsen's works. Erkusukes (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes that you added are not accurate. Please present them at the talk first. Grandmaster (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment it here; the issue was extensively discussed in Archives. do not engage in edit warring. Erkusukes (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what Hewsen says:

Caucasian Albania (Russian Kavkazkaja Albanija) is the term now conventionally used for classical Albania by both Soviet and Western scholars to distinguish it from the modern Albania in the Balkans with which it has no connection. The French Aghovanie based on Armenian Aluank' (Aghouank') is a monstrosity which has fortunately failed to gain currency. The native name for the country is unknown to us.

So this scholar clearly says that the native name is unknown, and there can be no other interpretation of his words. Grandmaster (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

that is what i am saying. Movses, however, chose differently - he says it is an Armenian term. we should mention that. he knew better. Erkusukes (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what you are saying. Hewsen does not say that "native name for the country may not be known", he says that it was not known. It is different. Albanians were not Armenians, and Movses may explain what Armenian name could mean, however no one knows what native people of Albania called their land. You misinterpret Hewsen. Grandmaster (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Movses is the only original historian of Caucasian Albania who suggested the etymology of the name. He said it comes from "aghu." But yes, we don't know for sure especially because there might have been no name at all, except for this Armenian term. Remember that there were 26 different tribes in C.A. It seems that Armenians assimilated them long before the Armenian kingdom was divided in 387, and C.A. became an Armenian-ruled land. Erkusukes (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they were no assimilated, Arab geographers reported that Albanian language was spoken in Barda and rest of Albania is the 10th century. And again, Hewesen say that the native name of the country is not known, you cannot change the words of the source. Movses explains what the Armenian name could mean, however one should bear in mind that it is only a legend and Aran did not exist in real life. So please restore the words of Hewsen back in their original form and do not engage in original research. Grandmaster (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to "is not known" as you suggested. Erkusukes (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What's up with "if it ever existed"? There was nothing like that in Hewsen. Grandmaster (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I removed "if it ever existed" but you give me an explicit reference that it ever existed. If Hewsen said "name is not known" it does not mean that there was a name. Erkusukes (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, if he says that the native name is not known, then there should have been one. Keep it faithful to the source, it will help to avoid the confusion. And you distorted Hewsen in other quotes too. If you want to quote the source, do it accurately, without any personal interpretations. Grandmaster (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you the same question as I asked Merjanov. You almost word by word repeated the POV edits of banned User:Jalaleddin, which was a sock of User:Robert599. It does not seem to be a coincidence. Please tell me do you have anything to do with that person, and if not, how come that you are making exactly the same edits? This is Jalaleddin: [6] And this is you: [7]

See also this, the full collection of Jalaleddin's vision of Albanian history, where he denies existence of Albanian ethnicity: [8]

And you do the same: [9] [10]

You say: It seems that Armenians assimilated them long before the Armenian kingdom was divided in 387, and C.A. became an Armenian-ruled land.

And Jalaleddin:

Before and after 387 AD “Caucasian Albania” was an Armenian land and an Armenian state for all means and purposes. That Armenian-managed country stretched from the Lake Sevan to the Caspian Sea.

Even this edit to the Albanian alphabet section is identical to that made by sock account: [11] [12]

Please explain how this is possible if you are not the same person. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

there were 26 tribes, what ethnicty? Jalalleddin was an Arab men, he had nothing to do with caucasis. Erkusukes (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

26 tribes were in Roman times, at later period the native population of Albania became more homogenic. And did you happen to know Jalaleddin? How do you know he was Arab? Grandmaster (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

POV edits

Erkusukes made many unsourced changes to the article, repeating word by word POV claims of Robert599 and his numerous socks. One good example is this: [13] As one could see, he changed the caption adding the word "presumably", when it is a scientifically proven fact that the stone contains Albanian script. No sources for this change are cited. Then he changes the line supported by a reference from Iranica to this:

Although there are only a few samples of what is believed to be an Albanian script, there is some evidence that distinctive Albanian speech persisted into early Islamic times.

According to Iranica, it is not just belief of some, it is a known fact that Albanian language was spoken in the 10th century in Albania. Why changing sourced info to personal POV interpretations?

And Erkusukes' interpretations of Hewsen are inaccurate either. There are many such edits made by this user which seriously damage the quality of this article. I suggest they are all rolled back and he discusses his proposed changes on talk first. Grandmaster (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And what’s most outrageous is that, referenced sources were removed without any consensus and blatant POV is added very courageously. Why the link to Aran was removed – I am shocked. --Aynabend (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the edits are absolute Original research with removal of references and inserting one-sided POV without any demonstrated desire to discuss anything. Perhaps, the new editor should first demonstrate that willingness and discuss those edits rather than engaging in simple rewrite removing prior sourced edits. Atabek (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC) i was only talking about armenian spelling of Aghvank, I did not read the rest, I see Armenian name restored. thank you. also, fixed from alvank to aghvank, you probable read ałvank in articles, which is pronounce gh, like azeri ğ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.31.146 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani nationalist POV, attempts to "cleanse Azerbaijan of Armenian history" (A.Schnirelman[14]

This page is of very poor quality. It uses irrelevant or false quotations; interprets the term "Caucasian Albanians" as an ethnic qualifier whereas either original or secondary sources point to mostly political-only atribution of that term. The texts are poorly written, contains misspellings (e.g. Kalankaytuk instead of Kalankatuyk). It does not adhere to chronological timelines. Some users, such as Grandmaster suggest something as bizarre as that the history of "Caucasian Albania" was written by certain Jalalleddin, although it is known that it was wrriten by the Armenian, not Arab, man - Movses Kaghankatvatsi. I am restoring well-referenced passage about the Armenian name of "Caucasian Albania," Aghvank. Do not atempt to vandalize well-referenced entries. Erkusukes (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's original research. Movses says that the name Agvank was given after local ruler, but since the native name is not known, we cannot assume that Agvank was the native name. Movses only explains etymology of the name of Agvank, but you cannot claim that this is what Albanians called their land. According to Hewsen, we don't know the native name. So your rewrite of intro is not acceptable, it contains original research. Grandmaster (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I tried to explain this to you before in another article, but you don't seem to have understood. What you are reading as an "l" is not actually an "l" - it is (in, for example, Hewson's atlas) a "l" with a line through the middle, meaning that it is actually pronunced like "gh". Meowy 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My "rewrite" has nothing to do with questioning what Hewsen is saying. That is why Hewsen's quote was preserved. A reference to Movses' explanation of Aghvank's name is important because it is the only authentic, first-hand reference to the name. It is well documentedand features in many analyses of the text; therefore is is not OR. Stop vandalizing well-referenced quotes. Go back and restore the passage. Erkusukes (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is there in the article, a few lines below. But your interpretation leaves the impression that Agvank was the native name, which it was not. That's why I restored the original version, since no OR is allowed. But no info was removed, that etymology is also in the article, in its main body. Grandmaster (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you fixing this. Grandmaster (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aghvank and its suggested etymology is the name reported by the only authentic source on Caucasian Albania. I am not suggesting that it was the true name of the land but it should be there. I am leaving, however, Hewsen's POV that native name of the land is not known. Erkusukes (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are again adding your personal interpretation. You cannot do that. We don't know what the country was called in udi language, the native tongue of Albanians. It is a fact supported by reliable sources. So no OR, please. Grandmaster (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you before that I am not adding any interpretations - i am stating raw facts from the (only) primary source; the primary source is the only thing that really matters - everything is someone's (often weird) hypotheses. Yt is you who is adding your POVs and behaving disruptively. What udi language?! What relevance the udi language has for all that? It is not a fact and it is not supprted by any sources. It is a figment of your imagination which you are trying to push as a POV. The udi language could not possibly be a native tongue for "albanians" because "albanians" were 26 different tribes with 26 different languages.Erkusukes (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was in Strabo times. At later times they became more consolidated, and one of the dialects became predominant. Clearly, these people were not Armenians, unlike what you claim, and scholarly sources agree with that. Now please explain what is the point of your tag? What are you disputing in particular? Grandmaster (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And you POV interpretation is not acceptable. "the American author R. Hewsen believes that the contemporaneous native name for the country is not known" is not accurate. It is not just the opinion of this scholar, it is a fact. If you know what Albanians called their land in their native language, please let me know. Otherwise do not add personal interpretations to the article. Grandmaster (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The main area of contention is that Grandmaster does not understand the difference between an opinion and a fact, and is basing his arguments either on OR or on Fringe Theories [15]. He refuses to cooperate and resorts to blind reverts. I asked him several times (see above) to present evidence that there was, as a fact (in other words, as a primary source evidence) that there actually was a self-definition for the country he and other call "albania" or "aghvank" and he stubbornly refuses to do so; absurdly, he presents the absence of a fact as evidence that his weird POV is a "fact." I am getting close to suggesting for Grandmaster to stop editing this article. This article was a playground for the likes of Grandmaster for too long, and most allegations here are unreferenced or referenced improperly and are a product of his fantasy (like the contention that the Albanian Alphabet could be called "Udi Script"). Erkusukes (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I already explained that what Hewsen says about the native name is not just his opinion, it is a fact accepted by scholars. No one knows what Albanians called their country in their native language, and Agvank was not a native name. And Udi script was not my edit, it was made by someone else. Grandmaster (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)