This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Grandmaster, why are you trying to add in the section Ancient population information which is unrelated to the history of Albania? This article has nothing to do with which lands Armenia conquered in the 2nd c BC and you know very well that according to R. Hewsen's recent work it is not sure that it happened in the 2nd c. BC (conceivably it was earlier part of Orontid Armenia). This stuff has been discussed many times earlier, so please keep to it. Albania evidently acquired the right bank of Kura in the 4th c. AD so please dont add quotes which refer to an other period. -- Vacio ( talk) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to work on a compromise version in the next few days. In the meantime, no one should delete sourced information without a consensus to do so. Thanks guys, Khoi khoi 06:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Second, it is not certain whether the left bank of Kura was conquered by Armenia in the 2nd c. BC. This point has already been discussed.-- Vacio ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Caucasian Albanians, unrelated to Albanians of the Balkans, were one of the Northeast Caucasian peoples [1] [2], who emerged as a federation of twenty-six tribes, when the Albanian monarchy was established in the 1st or 2nd century BC. [3] The Caucasian Albanians inhabited the lands between Caucasian Iberia, the Caspian Sea and the Kura River [4] [5] [6], however not as a distinct ethnic group, but a compilation of various Caucasian tribes, probably largely of autochthonous Caucasian origin. [4]
Strabo wrote of the Caucasian Albanians in the first century BC:
“ At the present time, indeed, one king rules all the tribes, but formerly the several tribes were ruled separately by kings of their own according to their several languages. They have twenty-six languages, because they have no easy means of intercourse with one another [7] ” In the late 4th century AD the Cacuasian Albanians acquired several districts of Eastern Armenia on the southern bank of Kura, which originally was also inhabited by a great variety of peoples, but at the time had a heavly Armenian or Armenicized population. [4]
Historians who? believe … etc.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bosworth
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Chorbajian, Levon (1994). The Caucasian Knot. Zed Books. p. 54. ISBN 1856492885.
The Caucasian Albania state was established during the second to first centuries BC and, according to Strabo, was made up of 26 tribes. It seems that their language was Ibero-Caucasian.{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.
- ^ a b c Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chicago: 1982, 27-40.
- ^ Stuart, James (1994). An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 27. ISBN 0313274975.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help)- ^ Strabo, Geography. 11.4.1
- ^ Strabo. Geography, book 11, chapter 14.
We should keep the info that the original population of the right bank of Kura was non-Armenian and non-Iranian (except probably for some Scythians) and non-Turkic. There's a consensus among the scholars about that. Indeed, if the ancestors of Armenians came from Balkans, or some other area, someone must have lived on the right bank before that. Hewsen lists the people who formed the original population of the region. It is important and verifiable info, and has a direct relevance to this article, as the region was a part of historical Albania. I see that in your proposal you are trying to obscure again the fact that the original population of the right bank of Kura was of non-Armenian origin. I cannot agree to that. The native Caucasian nature of the population of the right bank should be stated explicitly, whether someone likes it or not. -- Grand master 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I placed a dubious tag concerning this edits, by which user Brandmeister removed the sentence "Caucasian Albania first appeared in history as a vassal state in the empire of Tigranes the Great of Armenia (95-56 BC)," and added this one "The Caucasian Albanians emerged in northern Azerbaijan after 500 BC". Here is the relevant quote from Robert Hewsen:
Although Arrian's mention of the Albanians places them (perhaps anachronistically) in the Persian army against Alexander the Great, Caucasian Albania first appears in history as a vassal state in the empire of Tigranes the Great of Armenia (95-56 B.C.), having arisen as a kingdom in eastern Caucasia and, with the Geor¬gians and the Armenians, forming one of the three nations that held between them that northeasternmost sector of the Mediterranean world. According to Strabo, the kingdom of Albania coalesced in the Hellenistic period as a federation of twenty-six tribes under the leadership of one of their chieftains, essentially as Iberia and Armenia had become unified at an earlier time.
Armenia: A historial Atlas., p. 40.
I want to know why this statement of such a notable Caucasologist is "moot". -- Vacio ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Iranica says:
The Albanians are mentioned for the first time at the battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.), as being in a contingent composed also of Medes, Cadusii, and Sacae, under the command of Atropates, satrap of Media (Arrian Anabasis 3.8.4, 3.11.4), and then in the guard attending Darius III (ibid., 3.13.1). The fact that the Albanians were under the leadership of the satrap of Media seems to indicate that this people, like the Cadusii and the Sacae, had been incorporated into his satrapy; according to one quite reasonable hypothesis, the Albanians would already have belonged to the Median Empire.
It is a reliable source too.-- Grand master 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a particular sentence from a book that is political rather than historical: [1] Because the book is talking about nation-building historiography rather than facts and there was no Atropathenes in history. That is the book is talking about identity construction and is not claiming any facts, but rather how the identity was constructed. Atropat was simply a Persian satrap of Media and the people that were there were Iranian Medes, Parthians, Persians or etc., but no group by the name of Atropathenes has ever existed. Also "Caucasian Albanians"(which I assume is an umbrella term for Caucasian-speaking tribes that spoke languages which are possibly related to Lezgin, Udi and etc.) did not establish any Christians Kingdoms. All the Christian kingdoms of Armenia and Caucasian Albania at this time up to the end of the Sassanid era and even the 8th censtury were established by Iranian Persian/Parthians and others. So the article is talking about myth-nation building writing (the article's scope) rather than ancient history. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wont object if it says on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan, but then again, you could also add Dagestan and Georgia...-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole sentence should be moved to later sections and partially deleted: "Though it came under strong Armenian religious and cultural influence,[4][5][6][7][8] the country was largely independent.[9][10][11]" Obviously this whole sentence is designed to feed nationalistic POVs. The sources [9][10][11] are all faulty sources (one is from 1854. Another is Soviet Encyclopedia (designed to minimize Iranian influence in Armenia, Georgia and Caucasian Albania) and another one has nothing to do with ancient historiography). In actuality, Caucasian Albania was ruled probably by Medes, definitely by Achaemenids, then by Parthians and then by Sassanids (at least as a client Kingdom of Iranian rulers and sometimes directly through Marzabans), then parts by Iranian Mihranids, Iranian Bagratids..and finally by Arabs, then by Iranian or Iranianized dynasties, then by Seljuqs Turks, Sherwanshahs/Atabeks, Khwarzmidshahs, Mongols, Turkomens, Safavids and Qajars, Russians and modern period. If by independent we mean that the rulers were actual Caucasian Albanians, then from Median period till Arab period, this is hardly true. Note Swietchowski: "What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran.". Virtually the toponyms of the most important ancient cities and regions including Baku, Ganja, Barda', Beylekan/Paytakran, Sherwan are all Iranian. Also: "The kingdom's long-term capital was Qabala." where-as this might been very short period. The whole introduction is actually suffering from the fact that it is written for two purposes: 1) to show Albania/Albanians as independent people with long history, where-as Albanians were simply different Caucasian tribes and were ruled by Iranian kings. 2) To show Armenian influence which is valid, but the Iranian influence is more (so why not put it in the intro?) and even Zoroastrianism was spread in the area and this should be in the intro as well. I propose removing any source that does not have anything to do with ancient history and rewriting the whole article based on ancient period, Mede/Achamenid, Greek-Roman period, Parthian period, Sassanid period. Then a section on Caucasian Albanians (as a people) and possible linguistic off-shoots (Udi, Lezgi), and then a section on Armenian influence and Armenianization, Iranian influence, and Hunnic/Khazaric entrustions. The Encyclopedia Iranica articles on Arran and Albania are written by neutral experts and should be followed. Soviet Encyclopedia and sources about NK conflict should be avoided. Note Soviet Encyclopedia should not just be avoided for this article only, but any article with regards to the Caucasus(Armenia and Georgia as well) since its purpose has been to minimize Iranian influence based on political interests of the USSR. We can also see this sometimes in Western historiography (though I cannot do much about it) where due to Iran being a rival of the West in the Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanids periods, some authors will minimize its influence. Also the local Christians who wrote the main historiography were hostile to Sassanids but Islamic sources are more favorable. Of course all this will take time, and for now I am interested in just fixing the Sassanid section, but this is a long term proposition to make the article balanced. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography, ed. by William Smith, 1854, p. 90:
The [Albanian] people nominally submitted to Pompey, but remained really independent.
[ http://books.google.com/books?id=R2dwFYio3g4C&pg=PA17&dq=Caucasian+Albania+independent A Historical Atlas of Azerbaijan, Sherri Liberman, 2004, p. 17]:
It [Albania] was relatively independent from the Greek Macedonian rulers and remained so until the later Arab invasions of the seventh century AD.
The Armenians, Anne Elizabeth Redgate, 2000, p. 69:
The subjugation of Albania is unrecorded
So no scholar consensus on Albanian subjection throughout antiquity, as such I urge to hold the related edits. And no Soviet conspiracy :) brand спойт 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Also what you added was WP:OR, since no such sentence was found in those books. It for example contradicts Swiecthowski or Iranica or even Wiesehofer (who uses kingdom but entrusted kingdom), Britannica (see Shapur's list of provinces) and sources, besides not being in the source you mentioned. So by Wikipedia policy, differing viewpoints should be stated in their own section. The 1852 and the other book "The Armenians" is also discussing the Roman era, so one cannot generalize for the whole period of the article and say the Roman era is talking about Achaemenid era. Indeed I already showed maps of Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid empire and Albania was either part of it (Achaemenid and a portion of Sassanids) or a client kingdom. It was independent however in the Roman era and at sometimes it had multiple fiefdoms (per Minorsky) in the late Sassanid era. The Arsacisd kingdom of Albania was at most a client kingdom of larger Parthian/Sassanid empires, but again this is a Parthian-Iranian kingdom and not really connected to the Caucasian-speaking Albanians. All of these are included in their own section. Note if I was a POV-pusher I would put this: "What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran" right in the intro. So lets keep the introduction clean and lets not violate WP:OR and WP:synthesis by bringing the Roman era into the Achaemenid, Median or Sassanid era. The complexity of the Sassanid era has its own section. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Soviet Encyclopedia for obvious reasons as USSR historiography is well known to be have been politicized. But I also removed Caucasian knot [9]. Note it explicitly states: "During the first centuries AD Albania, like Armenia, was governed by Arsacids (Arshakuni) dynasty, installed by Persians". The book is also political: "Relying on that certain historians of the Baku school have tried to show that territories extending between Lake Sevan and the Kura (which would include Karabagh) have belonged, since antiquity, not to Armenia but to Caucasian Albania...in reality any ancient Greek and Roman historians...confirmum until the fifth century AD these territories were part of Armenia...". Such works with political rhetorics that are not about ancient historiography should be avoided. I have no problem in stating when CA was dependent, independent , client kingdom, province and etc, but I encourage not using modern books about politics when discussion ancient historiography unless there needs to be a section on politicization of Albanians. But we cannot make a general blank statement. It was independent it seems during the time of Strabo. It sure was not independent during the Achaemenid era. So each century it can deal with its own section. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I modified the intruduction and moved some things around, but did not delete any sources except the ones I mentioned. I also removed mention of Manneans since I am not sure what was its relation.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Albanians fiercely resisted the Roman armies, and the country was, it is thought, largely independent until the fifth century AD... The Caucasian Knot, Zed Books, 1994, p. 54
I suggest we remove this part from the intro:
After the dissolution of the Achaemenid empire, an independent Caucasian Albanian kingdom existed in the first century B.C. before the rise of the Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. During the Sassanid era, at times it was a province and\or client kingdom of the Sassanid empire. After the downfall of the Sassanid empire, control was past to the Mihranids under the Islamic empire.
I don't think this is needed there, the intro should only explain what Albania was. The rest can be detailed in the main text of the article.-- Grand master 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to shorten the lead to provide just the basic info:
Caucasian Albania ( Greek: Ἀλβανία, Albanía [1]; Old Armenian: Աղուանք, Aghuank, [2] [1] Parthian: Ardhan, in Persian: Arran [3], in Arabic: Al Ran [2] [3]) was an ancient country, located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan.
Otherwise it will be always a battleground for those who want to stress the independence of Albania, or its Armenian or Persian connections. I think it is better to avoid that, and keep the intro brief. All other details can be discussed in the main body of the article. -- Grand master 06:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the original lead, I suggest we restore it. It was stable for years:
Caucasian Albania (in Armenian: Աղվանք = Aghvank [2] [1], in Parthian: Ardhan, in Persian: Arran [3], in Arabic: Al Ran [2] [3], in Greek: Ἀλβανία = Albanía [1]) was an ancient country that existed on the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan. The name "Albania" is Greek and Latin, and denotes "mountainous land"; [1] the contemporaneous native name for the country is unknown. [4]
Grand master 06:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original lead for now. I think any changes to this important part of the article should be agreed on talk first. Also, I don't think any changes to it are necessary. There's a reason that it remained in the above form for years. It is neutral and contains only the statements no one can dispute.-- Grand master 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Brand, though it was originally an exonym it certainly was not after the fifth century at least. In addition, 90% of everything that is known about Albania comes from work written in medieval Armenian where the region and the ancient state are referred to as Aghvank. Lets hope that this was just a matter of ignorance on your behalf and not something more sinister (why would one remove the most common name in ancient historiography in regards to this entity from the intro and leave obscure designations like Ardhan and Al-Ran baffles the mind).-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion Latin and Greek spellings should go first, as the word Albania is of Greek and Latin origin, and all others after. -- Grand master 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Azerbaijani-Turkish name is also Arran (19th century books writing on history in Azerbaijani Turkish have used it) and I think it is fine also to include that in the introduction, since historical Arran/Albania are to a large extent the present territory of the republic of Azerbaijan. There is also no reason to remove the Armenian name as it is one of the oldest and is actually important for scholars doing research. Persian/Parthian is also important. In general there seems to be no criterion for naming usage in the introduction (as far as I am aware) and it is best not to exclude any names. "Clutter" is not a good excuse and that is not the real reason why some have removed other languages. So unless there is defining wikipedia policy, there is no reason to exclude any language that has some relavance (etymology, historical name, modern territory and etc.). -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 06:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Caucasian Albanian regions template was removed without any discussion this also goes the same for the painting of Qabala castle, so I added them back as they are very important for the article. Baku87 ( talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Meowy, before removing the maps from 3rd party sources, please, explain your edits and achieve consensus. Atabəy ( talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Meowy, did you read the description of the image Deutsch: Kaukasus-Region um 565 n. Chr. Quellen sind Putzger historischer Weltatlas Ausgabe 2005, Heinz Fähnrich: Geschichte Georgiens von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenherrschaft. Shaker, Aachen 1993, ISBN 3-86111-683-9.. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The map clearly says year 565, and the description is given. There is no basis for removing a well-referenced material. Atabəy ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that all the info about modern Azerbaijan is relevant in this article, hence I removed the template. Lida Vorig ( talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if Azeris are related to Albanians or not. The template is for the history of the country of Azerbaijan, not the Azerbaijani people. And the history of the country, i.e. the territory that it covers, starts from the times the humans started inhabiting this region, no matter what ethnicity they were or if they had any at all. Please note the difference between the history of the country of Azerbaijan and history of Azerbaijani people. It is not the same thing. Any scholarly publication about the history of Azerbaijan includes every state that existed on its territory. So please refrain from edit warring and stop removing the template from the article. Albania is an important part of the history of Azerbaijan. Grand master 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we should not mix the kingdom of Albania and the region of Arran in Islamic times. Since after the 10th century it was a different thing, with different population, and we have a separate article on Arran, Arran of later times should be described separately, like it is done in Iranica. -- Grand master 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the name, 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.
Grand master 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article should draw a line in the 7th century, and the Islamic era history of the region should be discussed elsewhere. I have arranged the Islamic era material under Caucasian_Albania#Islamic_era and placed a {{ splitsection}}. I am not sure where this could be best exported to, perhaps medieval history of Azerbaijan, which could become a standalone article. -- dab (𒁳) 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes this merger had been discussed before and Arran is a term for the Islamic era and actually in the same Islamic era, many times it did not include
Shirvan.
Shirvanshah's ruled the area of
Shirvan for most of the Islamic era (mostly as vassal's of larger empires) and are one of the longest continous dynasties that survived many empires.
Shirvan has its own article. Iranica does not yet have an article on Shirvan because it has not reached S yet or it has not been written. But Arran and Albania are differentiated and one cannot merge the
Shirvanshah to an article on Caucasian Albania. --
Nepaheshgar (
talk)
14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, Albania is the Latin name and Arran is the Persian one. Both are exonyms. I am not sure it is a good idea to use the Latin vs. Persian name as a marker of historical periods, since obviously the same region was called Albania in Latin and Arran in Middle Persian simultaneously. We need some title that more explicitly delimits the time period after the Islamic conquest (such as Albania (satrapy) for the Sassanid period). -- dab (𒁳) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Albania (Azerbaijan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghvank ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's great! While I was in search for some information in Wikipedia, I came to the page of this article, and found out that from the page of Arran one shall be redirected here. When I offered to do it in Russian Wikipedia (without knowing that this redirection exists), the same people, who here try to be more polite, neglected my offer. They (in Russian part of Wikipedia) go on in creation with their profound knowledge of history of the region and written sources, but here it does not work. Why some of you do not look through the pages in Russian. Even if you do not know letters, you may see the photographs. It is worth to see! You may even ask questions in English. Most of the users know English, and will be happy to help you. More exciting discoveries you will do in Azerbaijani language part of Wikipedia! I got a great pleasure of great pics as well! -- Zara-arush ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Marshall, on this talk page I see no "convincing arguments" to exclude the Azerbaijan history template, rather murky edit summaries. Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia is not the only source here that talks about CA in the context of Azerbaijan's history. Brandmeister t] 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So what? Does that make the history of the iron age kingdom of Urartu that of the Republic of Turkey's just because the latter is found on the territory of the former? It was a realm that was poorly defined and one which had become Armenian in all but name by the eighth to ninth centuries, if not even earlier according to Robert Hewsen. If anything, a history of Armenia template belongs here since the Albanians had very intimate cultural and undoubtedly ethnic ties to the Armenians, having an alphabet that was probably invented by Mesrop Mashtots and a religious see that was directly subordinate to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Albanians had disappeared long before the first Turkic invasions of the late eleventh century and certainly far before the modern borders of Azerbaijan were delineated. It probably makes little difference anyways for Azerbaijan anyways, since, as I highlighted on the Gardman talk page, it seems to claim things outside of its own borders as a part of its own history, from the Armenian temple of Garni on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia to the ancient city of Artashat.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
lol, I mean, really, Grandmaster? All scholars acknowledge the Armenians as the direct cultural inheritors of Urartu, even if some believe that the Urartians themselves were not Armenians in the first place. We have such illustrious Armenian nakharar families such as the Artsrunis, the Rshtunis and the Amatunis and it is very interesting to note these "uni" endings were Urartian in origin. And let's not even talk about the ethnogenesis of the two peoples...
Ancient Gaul has more going for modern France, though certainly not in a straight line, than an ancient kingdom that was extinguished in the 6th-8th centuries and modern Azerbaijan. Shireen Hunter has done a great deal of research in this area, especially the role of Soviet politics in Azerbaijani historiography. Until the first quarter of the 20th century, no one ever referred to the territory north of the River Araks as "Azerbaijan" because the concept itself did not exist until the 20th century. Just because the modern state was able to carve itself out a niche in a certain region doesn't mean that everything that once existed there is now automatically related to it, moreso since Azerbaijani nation-building was relatively embryonic at the 20th century and was trying to define itself at the time. Also your impatience and your own penchant for immediately reverting an article, even when a discussion is taking place, is problematic and it's surprising how you can quickly pounce to file a report against a new editor like Ліонкінг but still have no qualms regarding your own disruptive actions. Please do not allow it to continue.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The Albanians had been subsumed by the Armenians, Georgians and Arabs by the seventh to eighth centuries, long before the Turkic invasions took place in the 11th and 12th centuries and long before there was the formulation of an Azerbaijani identity in the 20th century. If territory is the only thing you have to go on, then perhaps listening to a third opinion on what the general policy is regarding these templates is not such a bad idea. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, historic Armenia... was bounded by Caucasian Albania (present Azerbaijan) on the north-east... Vahan M. Kurkjian, A History of Armenia, Indo-European Publishing, 2008 p. 5
This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran)... Rouben Galichian, Historic maps of Armenia: the cartographic heritage, I.B.Tauris, 2004, p. 10
Apparently then you're choosing to believe in your own reality. There was no place called Azerbaijan in the period that Caucasian Albania existed - repeating the same argument over and over again is not bringing you guys any closer to proving your point. There's a 1,500 year gulf, to say nothing about the political, ethnic, and cultural gulf, that separates Albania from Azerbaijan, geography notwithstanding. Robert Hewsen puts it nicely;
That the so-called "Christian" or "New" Albania culture, which flourished after the transfer from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence Upon the Caucasian Albanians" in Classical Armenian Culture, ed. T. Samuelian, Pennsylvania, 1982, p. 34.
Of course, modern authors are going to have to mention where a land 2,000 years ago was located so that contemporary readers can relate it to it more easily. That's why we may read something about the Ionian communities in Asia Minor and add in parentheses "(now in modern-day Turkey)". You guys are having a hard time making your case.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Ajovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran).
V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.
Clearly, the nefarious attempts by the Azerbaijani government to claim everything for itself is what causes so much consternation among people. It says that the medieval Armenian monuments are Caucasian Albanian and are therefore part of Azerbaijan. This is a convoluted way of thinking that dominates Azerbaijan and one which thankfully no one else in the world adheres to. It's sheer propaganda and academic dishonesty; what else is one to make of it when every Armenian artifact is denied its identity and distorted to unbelievable levels of falsification. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request here: [19] Grand master 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The slow-burning edit war is not in compliance with normal editing standards. I have protected the page for two weeks to encourage discussion as opposed to a revert every few days (and this is heading for WP:LAME levels). Please post at WP:RFPU if you have come to a consensus before this. Stifle ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Should the history section of Caucasian Albania contain the Template:History of Azerbaijan? Brandmeister t] 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Armenians only claim lands which are part of their historic homeland, that is the lands comprising the Armenian Plateau, which should be the article you should be linking everyone to. And the idea itself is not that controversial, considering that even the Western Allies in 1919 were seriously contemplating to award all the lands stretching from Eastern Armenia to the six easternmost provinces of the Ottoman Empire and even Cilicia to the new Armenian republic on the basis of demographic, historical, and economic grounds. At least the case for Greater Armenia has some basis to it, not some intangible link between an ancient Christian culture which was fully absorbed by the medieval Armenians, Georgians and Arabs, and a modern Turkic state. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you don't honestly think the geographical term Armenia just suddenly rose up out of the blue now, do you? There's a reason why the expansive, easternmost Byzantine military theme was known as the Armeniac theme, why the the Arabs designated the entire province in the Caucasus as al-Armaniya, why the latin name for the apricot has the word armenicus in it. The overwhelming ethnic presence of Armenians in the region for almost three millennia justified calling this region Armenia right up until the early twentieth century, when the Armenians were forcibly and ruthlessly removed from their homeland by the Ottoman Turks. A settled Turkic presence in the territory now comprising Azerbaijan can be positively identified to the late eleventh-early twelfth century, tops.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Starting from the article's top I wonder why the caption "Borders of Caucasian Albania after the 387 AD partition of Armenia..." appeared again, despite its absence in the file description (as if CA was once a part of Armenian realm). The original caption just reads "Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600". Secondly, Mashtots' invention of Albanian script is disputable:
...Koryun... wrote about the fifth-century Armenian monk Mesrop Mashtots, the man who "renewed the alphabet" of Albania and taught the "new alphabet" (Langlois 1869: 10, 12. The phrases "renewed the alphabet" and "new alphabet" used by Koryun, the biographer of Mashtots, indicate that an older version of the Albanian alphabet and writing existed previously. Philip L. Kohl, Mara Kozelsky, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Selective remembrances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration, and consecration of national pasts, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 104
As such, the relevancy of Amaras Monastery is quite little, the coat-like WP:CHERRY issues are to be dealt with. The article's structure in this version is about to be recovered as it seems to be better crafted. Twilightchill t 09:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Then there came and visited them an elderly man, an Albanian* named Benjamin. And he [Mesrop] inquired and examined the barbaric diction of the Albanian language, and then through his usual god-given keenness of mind invented an alphabet, which he, through the grace of Christ, successfully organized and put in order.
Therefore, your quote is either misrepresentation of the original text. Wiki editors should carefully examine what sources they use. Xebulon ( talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Even after being warned not to make controversial edits without proper discussions, you have still went ahead and done them. It's like you acknowledge that your version contains mistakes, then shrug your shoulders and decide to ignore everyone else's complaints and decide to make edits which conform to your own views. Do I really need to call the ArbCom guys to come here and put and end to this disruption Brand?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have outlined above the elements which he has removed, without any real justification and with shoddy sources to back him up. I don't consider Armenian authors to be superior to Azerbaijani ones solely on the basis of ethnicity, which is a very poor argument to make. I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. Their works are published in peer-reviewed journals like Revue des Études Arméniennes and reproduced in other prestigious Western publications not because they are Armenian or because of the omnipotent Armenian lobby but because other authors understand that they are trying to look at history from an objective and relatively unsentimental viewpoint. I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value. As Robert Hewsen has admitted:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291
Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural. But for a few exceptions, they almost never let that compromise their academic standing.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
All I can infer from above is more nonsensical arguments. Figures like Nicholas Adontz, Dickran Kouyumjian, Richard G. Hovannisian, Sirarpie Der Nersessian and Nina G. Garsoian stand out not because of their ethnic heritage, which you keep bringing up ad nauseum, as if it is some sort of impediment to them being respected scholars, but because they all have a genuine interest in understanding history without making preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be. Even Armenian scholars of the Soviet Union, such as Hakop Manandyan, Suren Yeremyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Hrach Bartikyan, and Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, were well-known in the West, not because of their supposed connections to the diaspora, but because of the breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise in their areas. The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements. After independence, Azerbaijan's bold claims seem to have been magnified several fold, as they have been making even more grandiose and embarrassing assertions that would have ever been permitted in the USSR. If anything, we should be warier than ever to even consider consulting them for such sensitive topics. That you so whimsically discount Hewsen's opinion, on account of his partial Armenian heritage, shows just why such arguments never gain sway in the scholarly world.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can user Twilight Chill and Aram-van finally stop with edit warring? Please instead take you arguments here in this talk page. What kind of sources/arguments do you have to assert or rebut that CA became a Persian marzpanate in 387? -- va c io 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
387 A.D. would be the Parthian dynasty of Albania which was part of the larger Sassanid empire. The dynasties in Georgia and Armenia were also Parthian/Persian. All the period is not clear but 100% there are two cases: either the Marzubans ruled the area (Marzapanate is correct) or Albania was a Parthian vassal kingdom/province of the Sassanid.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Note I quote Chamount: "The Sasanian period. In about A.D. 252-53 Šāpūr I made himself lord of Great Armenia, which was turned into a Sasanian province; Iberia and Albania were also soon conquered and annexed...The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax (Pʿawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative à l’Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des études arméniennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Mušeł (cf. Pʿawstos, ibid.) was unlikely." [21]" [22] So to not list anything about Sassanids/Parthian kingdom in 387 A.D. is not correct. Thanks. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Twilight-chill quotes from this source: [23] The author is Murtazali S. Gadjiev which is fine (I do not know his expterise), but he is not stating that Caucasian Albanian had an Aramic based script. The Aramaic based script is about Albania not Albanians (two extremly different things). He is talking about Parthian which was based on the Aramaic script. As Gadjiev states: “It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” Note the Parthian language is an Iranian language and not at all related to Caucasian Albanian. The Aramaic script described is for the Parthian language.
About the actual Caucasian Albanian script, the book (incidentally same page states): “The first independent or original Caucasian Albanian script dated from the beginning of the fifth century AD, where Mashtots, in conjunction with the priest and translator Albanian Benjamin, worked with the consent of the higher secular and religious authorities of the country, King Ahswahen and Bishop Jeremy, to create the original Albanian alphabet”. I believe if a source is presented, it should be presented in its full here. The alphabet of Albania (not Albanians) described by Gadjiev is the Aramaic script of Parthian and not the Caucasian Albanian alphabet. In conclusion Gadjiev states very clear that Mashtot created the first and independent original Caucasian Albanian script in the same page. So one must not confuse the Parthian language based on Aramaic script with the Caucasian Albanian language (which we hardly know about) and whose script was created by Mashtot. That is script of Caucasian Albania (geography) is a different concept than the Caucasian Albanian script. About the map that users are disagreeing with, the map is during the Parthian rulers of Albania who were part of the larger Sassanid empire. They were either Vassals of the Sassanids or under direct control of the Marzuban, and either way, they had intermarried heavily with the Sassanids. Anyhow, that is another issue, but please do not confuse Parthian language which is an Iranian language written in a modified Aramaic script with Albanian. Thanks. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Also I noted that the same author Gadjiev stats about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania.". Note I do not know about the scholarly quality of Gadjiev but he is not stating any different with regards to Parthian and Albanian script than other books. The Aramaic script was used for Parthian and than Middle Persian, not Albanian. However, he does affirm that both Parthian and Middle Persian (which are very close and to large extent mutually intelligble languages) were official languages in Albania. Consequently, I have found higher quality sources (Western ones and Toumanoff (who is a well known expert) in order to avoide the disputes above) and have added both languages in the infobox. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Middle Persian as the official language of Sassanids is a well known fact and Albania was part of the Sassanid empire. A source has been added with this regard. Here is a quote from the same source as Twilightchill was using with regards to Middle Persian. Gadjiev states about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania) [24].
The same book again states:"It is worth emphasizing that the official seal of the Christian church of Albania was inscribed with Middle Persian writing, for it clearly demonstrates that the large cultural and political influence of Iran and shows that Middle Persian language and writing permeated not only the Albanian elite but also the ecclestial elite" (pg 105, ibid). Note usually the elites were actually Parthian (like the Arsacid dynasty of Albania) and not Albanian (speakers of Caucasian languages). The same with the elites of Armenia and Georgia at the same time.
As per
Parthian, again Albania was ruled by the Parthians. The same source twilightchill highlighted is clear about the Parthian language and its usage in Albania: "“It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” "
[25].
As I personally do not know how reliable the author is, however, I brought the more exact statement of the well known scholar Cyrill Toumanoff: "Whatever the sporadic suzerainty of Rome, the country was now a part—together with Iberia (East Georgia) and (Caucasian) Albania, where other Arsacid branched reigned—of a pan-Arsacid family federation. Culturally, the predominance of Hellenism, as under the Artaxiads, was now followed by a predominance of “Iranianism,” and, symptomatically, instead of Greek, as before, Parthian became the language of the educated"(Toumanoff, Cyril. The Arsacids. Encyclopædia Iranica). See also Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 12:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Grandmaster, why are you trying to add in the section Ancient population information which is unrelated to the history of Albania? This article has nothing to do with which lands Armenia conquered in the 2nd c BC and you know very well that according to R. Hewsen's recent work it is not sure that it happened in the 2nd c. BC (conceivably it was earlier part of Orontid Armenia). This stuff has been discussed many times earlier, so please keep to it. Albania evidently acquired the right bank of Kura in the 4th c. AD so please dont add quotes which refer to an other period. -- Vacio ( talk) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to work on a compromise version in the next few days. In the meantime, no one should delete sourced information without a consensus to do so. Thanks guys, Khoi khoi 06:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Second, it is not certain whether the left bank of Kura was conquered by Armenia in the 2nd c. BC. This point has already been discussed.-- Vacio ( talk) 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Caucasian Albanians, unrelated to Albanians of the Balkans, were one of the Northeast Caucasian peoples [1] [2], who emerged as a federation of twenty-six tribes, when the Albanian monarchy was established in the 1st or 2nd century BC. [3] The Caucasian Albanians inhabited the lands between Caucasian Iberia, the Caspian Sea and the Kura River [4] [5] [6], however not as a distinct ethnic group, but a compilation of various Caucasian tribes, probably largely of autochthonous Caucasian origin. [4]
Strabo wrote of the Caucasian Albanians in the first century BC:
“ At the present time, indeed, one king rules all the tribes, but formerly the several tribes were ruled separately by kings of their own according to their several languages. They have twenty-six languages, because they have no easy means of intercourse with one another [7] ” In the late 4th century AD the Cacuasian Albanians acquired several districts of Eastern Armenia on the southern bank of Kura, which originally was also inhabited by a great variety of peoples, but at the time had a heavly Armenian or Armenicized population. [4]
Historians who? believe … etc.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Bosworth
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Chorbajian, Levon (1994). The Caucasian Knot. Zed Books. p. 54. ISBN 1856492885.
The Caucasian Albania state was established during the second to first centuries BC and, according to Strabo, was made up of 26 tribes. It seems that their language was Ibero-Caucasian.{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.
- ^ a b c Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chicago: 1982, 27-40.
- ^ Stuart, James (1994). An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 27. ISBN 0313274975.
{{ cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
( help)- ^ Strabo, Geography. 11.4.1
- ^ Strabo. Geography, book 11, chapter 14.
We should keep the info that the original population of the right bank of Kura was non-Armenian and non-Iranian (except probably for some Scythians) and non-Turkic. There's a consensus among the scholars about that. Indeed, if the ancestors of Armenians came from Balkans, or some other area, someone must have lived on the right bank before that. Hewsen lists the people who formed the original population of the region. It is important and verifiable info, and has a direct relevance to this article, as the region was a part of historical Albania. I see that in your proposal you are trying to obscure again the fact that the original population of the right bank of Kura was of non-Armenian origin. I cannot agree to that. The native Caucasian nature of the population of the right bank should be stated explicitly, whether someone likes it or not. -- Grand master 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I placed a dubious tag concerning this edits, by which user Brandmeister removed the sentence "Caucasian Albania first appeared in history as a vassal state in the empire of Tigranes the Great of Armenia (95-56 BC)," and added this one "The Caucasian Albanians emerged in northern Azerbaijan after 500 BC". Here is the relevant quote from Robert Hewsen:
Although Arrian's mention of the Albanians places them (perhaps anachronistically) in the Persian army against Alexander the Great, Caucasian Albania first appears in history as a vassal state in the empire of Tigranes the Great of Armenia (95-56 B.C.), having arisen as a kingdom in eastern Caucasia and, with the Geor¬gians and the Armenians, forming one of the three nations that held between them that northeasternmost sector of the Mediterranean world. According to Strabo, the kingdom of Albania coalesced in the Hellenistic period as a federation of twenty-six tribes under the leadership of one of their chieftains, essentially as Iberia and Armenia had become unified at an earlier time.
Armenia: A historial Atlas., p. 40.
I want to know why this statement of such a notable Caucasologist is "moot". -- Vacio ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Iranica says:
The Albanians are mentioned for the first time at the battle of Gaugamela (331 B.C.), as being in a contingent composed also of Medes, Cadusii, and Sacae, under the command of Atropates, satrap of Media (Arrian Anabasis 3.8.4, 3.11.4), and then in the guard attending Darius III (ibid., 3.13.1). The fact that the Albanians were under the leadership of the satrap of Media seems to indicate that this people, like the Cadusii and the Sacae, had been incorporated into his satrapy; according to one quite reasonable hypothesis, the Albanians would already have belonged to the Median Empire.
It is a reliable source too.-- Grand master 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed a particular sentence from a book that is political rather than historical: [1] Because the book is talking about nation-building historiography rather than facts and there was no Atropathenes in history. That is the book is talking about identity construction and is not claiming any facts, but rather how the identity was constructed. Atropat was simply a Persian satrap of Media and the people that were there were Iranian Medes, Parthians, Persians or etc., but no group by the name of Atropathenes has ever existed. Also "Caucasian Albanians"(which I assume is an umbrella term for Caucasian-speaking tribes that spoke languages which are possibly related to Lezgin, Udi and etc.) did not establish any Christians Kingdoms. All the Christian kingdoms of Armenia and Caucasian Albania at this time up to the end of the Sassanid era and even the 8th censtury were established by Iranian Persian/Parthians and others. So the article is talking about myth-nation building writing (the article's scope) rather than ancient history. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wont object if it says on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan, but then again, you could also add Dagestan and Georgia...-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole sentence should be moved to later sections and partially deleted: "Though it came under strong Armenian religious and cultural influence,[4][5][6][7][8] the country was largely independent.[9][10][11]" Obviously this whole sentence is designed to feed nationalistic POVs. The sources [9][10][11] are all faulty sources (one is from 1854. Another is Soviet Encyclopedia (designed to minimize Iranian influence in Armenia, Georgia and Caucasian Albania) and another one has nothing to do with ancient historiography). In actuality, Caucasian Albania was ruled probably by Medes, definitely by Achaemenids, then by Parthians and then by Sassanids (at least as a client Kingdom of Iranian rulers and sometimes directly through Marzabans), then parts by Iranian Mihranids, Iranian Bagratids..and finally by Arabs, then by Iranian or Iranianized dynasties, then by Seljuqs Turks, Sherwanshahs/Atabeks, Khwarzmidshahs, Mongols, Turkomens, Safavids and Qajars, Russians and modern period. If by independent we mean that the rulers were actual Caucasian Albanians, then from Median period till Arab period, this is hardly true. Note Swietchowski: "What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran.". Virtually the toponyms of the most important ancient cities and regions including Baku, Ganja, Barda', Beylekan/Paytakran, Sherwan are all Iranian. Also: "The kingdom's long-term capital was Qabala." where-as this might been very short period. The whole introduction is actually suffering from the fact that it is written for two purposes: 1) to show Albania/Albanians as independent people with long history, where-as Albanians were simply different Caucasian tribes and were ruled by Iranian kings. 2) To show Armenian influence which is valid, but the Iranian influence is more (so why not put it in the intro?) and even Zoroastrianism was spread in the area and this should be in the intro as well. I propose removing any source that does not have anything to do with ancient history and rewriting the whole article based on ancient period, Mede/Achamenid, Greek-Roman period, Parthian period, Sassanid period. Then a section on Caucasian Albanians (as a people) and possible linguistic off-shoots (Udi, Lezgi), and then a section on Armenian influence and Armenianization, Iranian influence, and Hunnic/Khazaric entrustions. The Encyclopedia Iranica articles on Arran and Albania are written by neutral experts and should be followed. Soviet Encyclopedia and sources about NK conflict should be avoided. Note Soviet Encyclopedia should not just be avoided for this article only, but any article with regards to the Caucasus(Armenia and Georgia as well) since its purpose has been to minimize Iranian influence based on political interests of the USSR. We can also see this sometimes in Western historiography (though I cannot do much about it) where due to Iran being a rival of the West in the Achaemenid, Parthian, Sassanids periods, some authors will minimize its influence. Also the local Christians who wrote the main historiography were hostile to Sassanids but Islamic sources are more favorable. Of course all this will take time, and for now I am interested in just fixing the Sassanid section, but this is a long term proposition to make the article balanced. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dictionary of Greek and Roman geography, ed. by William Smith, 1854, p. 90:
The [Albanian] people nominally submitted to Pompey, but remained really independent.
[ http://books.google.com/books?id=R2dwFYio3g4C&pg=PA17&dq=Caucasian+Albania+independent A Historical Atlas of Azerbaijan, Sherri Liberman, 2004, p. 17]:
It [Albania] was relatively independent from the Greek Macedonian rulers and remained so until the later Arab invasions of the seventh century AD.
The Armenians, Anne Elizabeth Redgate, 2000, p. 69:
The subjugation of Albania is unrecorded
So no scholar consensus on Albanian subjection throughout antiquity, as such I urge to hold the related edits. And no Soviet conspiracy :) brand спойт 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Also what you added was WP:OR, since no such sentence was found in those books. It for example contradicts Swiecthowski or Iranica or even Wiesehofer (who uses kingdom but entrusted kingdom), Britannica (see Shapur's list of provinces) and sources, besides not being in the source you mentioned. So by Wikipedia policy, differing viewpoints should be stated in their own section. The 1852 and the other book "The Armenians" is also discussing the Roman era, so one cannot generalize for the whole period of the article and say the Roman era is talking about Achaemenid era. Indeed I already showed maps of Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid empire and Albania was either part of it (Achaemenid and a portion of Sassanids) or a client kingdom. It was independent however in the Roman era and at sometimes it had multiple fiefdoms (per Minorsky) in the late Sassanid era. The Arsacisd kingdom of Albania was at most a client kingdom of larger Parthian/Sassanid empires, but again this is a Parthian-Iranian kingdom and not really connected to the Caucasian-speaking Albanians. All of these are included in their own section. Note if I was a POV-pusher I would put this: "What is now the Azerbaijan Republic was known as Caucasian Albania in the pre-Islamic period, and later as Arran. From the time of ancient Media (ninth to seventh centuries b.c.) and the Persian Empire (sixth to fourth centuries b.c.), Azerbaijan usually shared the history of what is now Iran" right in the intro. So lets keep the introduction clean and lets not violate WP:OR and WP:synthesis by bringing the Roman era into the Achaemenid, Median or Sassanid era. The complexity of the Sassanid era has its own section. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the Soviet Encyclopedia for obvious reasons as USSR historiography is well known to be have been politicized. But I also removed Caucasian knot [9]. Note it explicitly states: "During the first centuries AD Albania, like Armenia, was governed by Arsacids (Arshakuni) dynasty, installed by Persians". The book is also political: "Relying on that certain historians of the Baku school have tried to show that territories extending between Lake Sevan and the Kura (which would include Karabagh) have belonged, since antiquity, not to Armenia but to Caucasian Albania...in reality any ancient Greek and Roman historians...confirmum until the fifth century AD these territories were part of Armenia...". Such works with political rhetorics that are not about ancient historiography should be avoided. I have no problem in stating when CA was dependent, independent , client kingdom, province and etc, but I encourage not using modern books about politics when discussion ancient historiography unless there needs to be a section on politicization of Albanians. But we cannot make a general blank statement. It was independent it seems during the time of Strabo. It sure was not independent during the Achaemenid era. So each century it can deal with its own section. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I modified the intruduction and moved some things around, but did not delete any sources except the ones I mentioned. I also removed mention of Manneans since I am not sure what was its relation.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Albanians fiercely resisted the Roman armies, and the country was, it is thought, largely independent until the fifth century AD... The Caucasian Knot, Zed Books, 1994, p. 54
I suggest we remove this part from the intro:
After the dissolution of the Achaemenid empire, an independent Caucasian Albanian kingdom existed in the first century B.C. before the rise of the Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. During the Sassanid era, at times it was a province and\or client kingdom of the Sassanid empire. After the downfall of the Sassanid empire, control was past to the Mihranids under the Islamic empire.
I don't think this is needed there, the intro should only explain what Albania was. The rest can be detailed in the main text of the article.-- Grand master 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to shorten the lead to provide just the basic info:
Caucasian Albania ( Greek: Ἀλβανία, Albanía [1]; Old Armenian: Աղուանք, Aghuank, [2] [1] Parthian: Ardhan, in Persian: Arran [3], in Arabic: Al Ran [2] [3]) was an ancient country, located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan.
Otherwise it will be always a battleground for those who want to stress the independence of Albania, or its Armenian or Persian connections. I think it is better to avoid that, and keep the intro brief. All other details can be discussed in the main body of the article. -- Grand master 06:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This is the original lead, I suggest we restore it. It was stable for years:
Caucasian Albania (in Armenian: Աղվանք = Aghvank [2] [1], in Parthian: Ardhan, in Persian: Arran [3], in Arabic: Al Ran [2] [3], in Greek: Ἀλβανία = Albanía [1]) was an ancient country that existed on the territory of present-day Republic of Azerbaijan and southern Dagestan. The name "Albania" is Greek and Latin, and denotes "mountainous land"; [1] the contemporaneous native name for the country is unknown. [4]
Grand master 06:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I restored the original lead for now. I think any changes to this important part of the article should be agreed on talk first. Also, I don't think any changes to it are necessary. There's a reason that it remained in the above form for years. It is neutral and contains only the statements no one can dispute.-- Grand master 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Brand, though it was originally an exonym it certainly was not after the fifth century at least. In addition, 90% of everything that is known about Albania comes from work written in medieval Armenian where the region and the ancient state are referred to as Aghvank. Lets hope that this was just a matter of ignorance on your behalf and not something more sinister (why would one remove the most common name in ancient historiography in regards to this entity from the intro and leave obscure designations like Ardhan and Al-Ran baffles the mind).-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion Latin and Greek spellings should go first, as the word Albania is of Greek and Latin origin, and all others after. -- Grand master 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The Azerbaijani-Turkish name is also Arran (19th century books writing on history in Azerbaijani Turkish have used it) and I think it is fine also to include that in the introduction, since historical Arran/Albania are to a large extent the present territory of the republic of Azerbaijan. There is also no reason to remove the Armenian name as it is one of the oldest and is actually important for scholars doing research. Persian/Parthian is also important. In general there seems to be no criterion for naming usage in the introduction (as far as I am aware) and it is best not to exclude any names. "Clutter" is not a good excuse and that is not the real reason why some have removed other languages. So unless there is defining wikipedia policy, there is no reason to exclude any language that has some relavance (etymology, historical name, modern territory and etc.). -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 06:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The Caucasian Albanian regions template was removed without any discussion this also goes the same for the painting of Qabala castle, so I added them back as they are very important for the article. Baku87 ( talk) 12:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Meowy, before removing the maps from 3rd party sources, please, explain your edits and achieve consensus. Atabəy ( talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Meowy, did you read the description of the image Deutsch: Kaukasus-Region um 565 n. Chr. Quellen sind Putzger historischer Weltatlas Ausgabe 2005, Heinz Fähnrich: Geschichte Georgiens von den Anfängen bis zur Mongolenherrschaft. Shaker, Aachen 1993, ISBN 3-86111-683-9.. Thanks. Atabəy ( talk) 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The map clearly says year 565, and the description is given. There is no basis for removing a well-referenced material. Atabəy ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that all the info about modern Azerbaijan is relevant in this article, hence I removed the template. Lida Vorig ( talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if Azeris are related to Albanians or not. The template is for the history of the country of Azerbaijan, not the Azerbaijani people. And the history of the country, i.e. the territory that it covers, starts from the times the humans started inhabiting this region, no matter what ethnicity they were or if they had any at all. Please note the difference between the history of the country of Azerbaijan and history of Azerbaijani people. It is not the same thing. Any scholarly publication about the history of Azerbaijan includes every state that existed on its territory. So please refrain from edit warring and stop removing the template from the article. Albania is an important part of the history of Azerbaijan. Grand master 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we should not mix the kingdom of Albania and the region of Arran in Islamic times. Since after the 10th century it was a different thing, with different population, and we have a separate article on Arran, Arran of later times should be described separately, like it is done in Iranica. -- Grand master 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, with regard to the name, 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.
Grand master 06:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this article should draw a line in the 7th century, and the Islamic era history of the region should be discussed elsewhere. I have arranged the Islamic era material under Caucasian_Albania#Islamic_era and placed a {{ splitsection}}. I am not sure where this could be best exported to, perhaps medieval history of Azerbaijan, which could become a standalone article. -- dab (𒁳) 11:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes this merger had been discussed before and Arran is a term for the Islamic era and actually in the same Islamic era, many times it did not include
Shirvan.
Shirvanshah's ruled the area of
Shirvan for most of the Islamic era (mostly as vassal's of larger empires) and are one of the longest continous dynasties that survived many empires.
Shirvan has its own article. Iranica does not yet have an article on Shirvan because it has not reached S yet or it has not been written. But Arran and Albania are differentiated and one cannot merge the
Shirvanshah to an article on Caucasian Albania. --
Nepaheshgar (
talk)
14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, Albania is the Latin name and Arran is the Persian one. Both are exonyms. I am not sure it is a good idea to use the Latin vs. Persian name as a marker of historical periods, since obviously the same region was called Albania in Latin and Arran in Middle Persian simultaneously. We need some title that more explicitly delimits the time period after the Islamic conquest (such as Albania (satrapy) for the Sassanid period). -- dab (𒁳) 18:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Albania (Azerbaijan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghvank ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It's great! While I was in search for some information in Wikipedia, I came to the page of this article, and found out that from the page of Arran one shall be redirected here. When I offered to do it in Russian Wikipedia (without knowing that this redirection exists), the same people, who here try to be more polite, neglected my offer. They (in Russian part of Wikipedia) go on in creation with their profound knowledge of history of the region and written sources, but here it does not work. Why some of you do not look through the pages in Russian. Even if you do not know letters, you may see the photographs. It is worth to see! You may even ask questions in English. Most of the users know English, and will be happy to help you. More exciting discoveries you will do in Azerbaijani language part of Wikipedia! I got a great pleasure of great pics as well! -- Zara-arush ( talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Marshall, on this talk page I see no "convincing arguments" to exclude the Azerbaijan history template, rather murky edit summaries. Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia is not the only source here that talks about CA in the context of Azerbaijan's history. Brandmeister t] 18:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So what? Does that make the history of the iron age kingdom of Urartu that of the Republic of Turkey's just because the latter is found on the territory of the former? It was a realm that was poorly defined and one which had become Armenian in all but name by the eighth to ninth centuries, if not even earlier according to Robert Hewsen. If anything, a history of Armenia template belongs here since the Albanians had very intimate cultural and undoubtedly ethnic ties to the Armenians, having an alphabet that was probably invented by Mesrop Mashtots and a religious see that was directly subordinate to the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Albanians had disappeared long before the first Turkic invasions of the late eleventh century and certainly far before the modern borders of Azerbaijan were delineated. It probably makes little difference anyways for Azerbaijan anyways, since, as I highlighted on the Gardman talk page, it seems to claim things outside of its own borders as a part of its own history, from the Armenian temple of Garni on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia to the ancient city of Artashat.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
lol, I mean, really, Grandmaster? All scholars acknowledge the Armenians as the direct cultural inheritors of Urartu, even if some believe that the Urartians themselves were not Armenians in the first place. We have such illustrious Armenian nakharar families such as the Artsrunis, the Rshtunis and the Amatunis and it is very interesting to note these "uni" endings were Urartian in origin. And let's not even talk about the ethnogenesis of the two peoples...
Ancient Gaul has more going for modern France, though certainly not in a straight line, than an ancient kingdom that was extinguished in the 6th-8th centuries and modern Azerbaijan. Shireen Hunter has done a great deal of research in this area, especially the role of Soviet politics in Azerbaijani historiography. Until the first quarter of the 20th century, no one ever referred to the territory north of the River Araks as "Azerbaijan" because the concept itself did not exist until the 20th century. Just because the modern state was able to carve itself out a niche in a certain region doesn't mean that everything that once existed there is now automatically related to it, moreso since Azerbaijani nation-building was relatively embryonic at the 20th century and was trying to define itself at the time. Also your impatience and your own penchant for immediately reverting an article, even when a discussion is taking place, is problematic and it's surprising how you can quickly pounce to file a report against a new editor like Ліонкінг but still have no qualms regarding your own disruptive actions. Please do not allow it to continue.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The Albanians had been subsumed by the Armenians, Georgians and Arabs by the seventh to eighth centuries, long before the Turkic invasions took place in the 11th and 12th centuries and long before there was the formulation of an Azerbaijani identity in the 20th century. If territory is the only thing you have to go on, then perhaps listening to a third opinion on what the general policy is regarding these templates is not such a bad idea. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, historic Armenia... was bounded by Caucasian Albania (present Azerbaijan) on the north-east... Vahan M. Kurkjian, A History of Armenia, Indo-European Publishing, 2008 p. 5
This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran)... Rouben Galichian, Historic maps of Armenia: the cartographic heritage, I.B.Tauris, 2004, p. 10
Apparently then you're choosing to believe in your own reality. There was no place called Azerbaijan in the period that Caucasian Albania existed - repeating the same argument over and over again is not bringing you guys any closer to proving your point. There's a 1,500 year gulf, to say nothing about the political, ethnic, and cultural gulf, that separates Albania from Azerbaijan, geography notwithstanding. Robert Hewsen puts it nicely;
That the so-called "Christian" or "New" Albania culture, which flourished after the transfer from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence Upon the Caucasian Albanians" in Classical Armenian Culture, ed. T. Samuelian, Pennsylvania, 1982, p. 34.
Of course, modern authors are going to have to mention where a land 2,000 years ago was located so that contemporary readers can relate it to it more easily. That's why we may read something about the Ionian communities in Asia Minor and add in parentheses "(now in modern-day Turkey)". You guys are having a hard time making your case.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Ajovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran).
V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.
Clearly, the nefarious attempts by the Azerbaijani government to claim everything for itself is what causes so much consternation among people. It says that the medieval Armenian monuments are Caucasian Albanian and are therefore part of Azerbaijan. This is a convoluted way of thinking that dominates Azerbaijan and one which thankfully no one else in the world adheres to. It's sheer propaganda and academic dishonesty; what else is one to make of it when every Armenian artifact is denied its identity and distorted to unbelievable levels of falsification. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I posted a request here: [19] Grand master 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The slow-burning edit war is not in compliance with normal editing standards. I have protected the page for two weeks to encourage discussion as opposed to a revert every few days (and this is heading for WP:LAME levels). Please post at WP:RFPU if you have come to a consensus before this. Stifle ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Should the history section of Caucasian Albania contain the Template:History of Azerbaijan? Brandmeister t] 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Armenians only claim lands which are part of their historic homeland, that is the lands comprising the Armenian Plateau, which should be the article you should be linking everyone to. And the idea itself is not that controversial, considering that even the Western Allies in 1919 were seriously contemplating to award all the lands stretching from Eastern Armenia to the six easternmost provinces of the Ottoman Empire and even Cilicia to the new Armenian republic on the basis of demographic, historical, and economic grounds. At least the case for Greater Armenia has some basis to it, not some intangible link between an ancient Christian culture which was fully absorbed by the medieval Armenians, Georgians and Arabs, and a modern Turkic state. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you don't honestly think the geographical term Armenia just suddenly rose up out of the blue now, do you? There's a reason why the expansive, easternmost Byzantine military theme was known as the Armeniac theme, why the the Arabs designated the entire province in the Caucasus as al-Armaniya, why the latin name for the apricot has the word armenicus in it. The overwhelming ethnic presence of Armenians in the region for almost three millennia justified calling this region Armenia right up until the early twentieth century, when the Armenians were forcibly and ruthlessly removed from their homeland by the Ottoman Turks. A settled Turkic presence in the territory now comprising Azerbaijan can be positively identified to the late eleventh-early twelfth century, tops.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Starting from the article's top I wonder why the caption "Borders of Caucasian Albania after the 387 AD partition of Armenia..." appeared again, despite its absence in the file description (as if CA was once a part of Armenian realm). The original caption just reads "Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425-600". Secondly, Mashtots' invention of Albanian script is disputable:
...Koryun... wrote about the fifth-century Armenian monk Mesrop Mashtots, the man who "renewed the alphabet" of Albania and taught the "new alphabet" (Langlois 1869: 10, 12. The phrases "renewed the alphabet" and "new alphabet" used by Koryun, the biographer of Mashtots, indicate that an older version of the Albanian alphabet and writing existed previously. Philip L. Kohl, Mara Kozelsky, Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Selective remembrances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration, and consecration of national pasts, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 104
As such, the relevancy of Amaras Monastery is quite little, the coat-like WP:CHERRY issues are to be dealt with. The article's structure in this version is about to be recovered as it seems to be better crafted. Twilightchill t 09:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Then there came and visited them an elderly man, an Albanian* named Benjamin. And he [Mesrop] inquired and examined the barbaric diction of the Albanian language, and then through his usual god-given keenness of mind invented an alphabet, which he, through the grace of Christ, successfully organized and put in order.
Therefore, your quote is either misrepresentation of the original text. Wiki editors should carefully examine what sources they use. Xebulon ( talk) 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Even after being warned not to make controversial edits without proper discussions, you have still went ahead and done them. It's like you acknowledge that your version contains mistakes, then shrug your shoulders and decide to ignore everyone else's complaints and decide to make edits which conform to your own views. Do I really need to call the ArbCom guys to come here and put and end to this disruption Brand?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have outlined above the elements which he has removed, without any real justification and with shoddy sources to back him up. I don't consider Armenian authors to be superior to Azerbaijani ones solely on the basis of ethnicity, which is a very poor argument to make. I just believe that Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality, since much of what they say is backed by a multitude of sources. Their works are published in peer-reviewed journals like Revue des Études Arméniennes and reproduced in other prestigious Western publications not because they are Armenian or because of the omnipotent Armenian lobby but because other authors understand that they are trying to look at history from an objective and relatively unsentimental viewpoint. I object to using any and almost all Azerbaijani sources because they have an invariable vested interest to distort and misrepresent what the sources say. The fact that almost all their works reflect the position of official state propaganda and are published in Baku or elsewhere by themselves is enough to suggest that their works hold little to no academic value. As Robert Hewsen has admitted:
Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, p. 291
Armenian authors may be biased, yes, to their own side, which is natural. But for a few exceptions, they almost never let that compromise their academic standing.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
All I can infer from above is more nonsensical arguments. Figures like Nicholas Adontz, Dickran Kouyumjian, Richard G. Hovannisian, Sirarpie Der Nersessian and Nina G. Garsoian stand out not because of their ethnic heritage, which you keep bringing up ad nauseum, as if it is some sort of impediment to them being respected scholars, but because they all have a genuine interest in understanding history without making preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be. Even Armenian scholars of the Soviet Union, such as Hakop Manandyan, Suren Yeremyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Hrach Bartikyan, and Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, were well-known in the West, not because of their supposed connections to the diaspora, but because of the breadth of their scope and their acknowledged expertise in their areas. The same cannot be said about those scholars working in Azerbaijan, who are apparently too preoccupied with attacking Armenians and too absorbed with trumpeting their own purported achievements. After independence, Azerbaijan's bold claims seem to have been magnified several fold, as they have been making even more grandiose and embarrassing assertions that would have ever been permitted in the USSR. If anything, we should be warier than ever to even consider consulting them for such sensitive topics. That you so whimsically discount Hewsen's opinion, on account of his partial Armenian heritage, shows just why such arguments never gain sway in the scholarly world.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can user Twilight Chill and Aram-van finally stop with edit warring? Please instead take you arguments here in this talk page. What kind of sources/arguments do you have to assert or rebut that CA became a Persian marzpanate in 387? -- va c io 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
387 A.D. would be the Parthian dynasty of Albania which was part of the larger Sassanid empire. The dynasties in Georgia and Armenia were also Parthian/Persian. All the period is not clear but 100% there are two cases: either the Marzubans ruled the area (Marzapanate is correct) or Albania was a Parthian vassal kingdom/province of the Sassanid.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Note I quote Chamount: "The Sasanian period. In about A.D. 252-53 Šāpūr I made himself lord of Great Armenia, which was turned into a Sasanian province; Iberia and Albania were also soon conquered and annexed...The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xałxał and Pʿartaw), Šakašēn, Kołṭʿ, Gardman, and Arcʿax (Pʿawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative à l’Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des études arméniennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Mušeł (cf. Pʿawstos, ibid.) was unlikely." [21]" [22] So to not list anything about Sassanids/Parthian kingdom in 387 A.D. is not correct. Thanks. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Twilight-chill quotes from this source: [23] The author is Murtazali S. Gadjiev which is fine (I do not know his expterise), but he is not stating that Caucasian Albanian had an Aramic based script. The Aramaic based script is about Albania not Albanians (two extremly different things). He is talking about Parthian which was based on the Aramaic script. As Gadjiev states: “It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” Note the Parthian language is an Iranian language and not at all related to Caucasian Albanian. The Aramaic script described is for the Parthian language.
About the actual Caucasian Albanian script, the book (incidentally same page states): “The first independent or original Caucasian Albanian script dated from the beginning of the fifth century AD, where Mashtots, in conjunction with the priest and translator Albanian Benjamin, worked with the consent of the higher secular and religious authorities of the country, King Ahswahen and Bishop Jeremy, to create the original Albanian alphabet”. I believe if a source is presented, it should be presented in its full here. The alphabet of Albania (not Albanians) described by Gadjiev is the Aramaic script of Parthian and not the Caucasian Albanian alphabet. In conclusion Gadjiev states very clear that Mashtot created the first and independent original Caucasian Albanian script in the same page. So one must not confuse the Parthian language based on Aramaic script with the Caucasian Albanian language (which we hardly know about) and whose script was created by Mashtot. That is script of Caucasian Albania (geography) is a different concept than the Caucasian Albanian script. About the map that users are disagreeing with, the map is during the Parthian rulers of Albania who were part of the larger Sassanid empire. They were either Vassals of the Sassanids or under direct control of the Marzuban, and either way, they had intermarried heavily with the Sassanids. Anyhow, that is another issue, but please do not confuse Parthian language which is an Iranian language written in a modified Aramaic script with Albanian. Thanks. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Also I noted that the same author Gadjiev stats about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania.". Note I do not know about the scholarly quality of Gadjiev but he is not stating any different with regards to Parthian and Albanian script than other books. The Aramaic script was used for Parthian and than Middle Persian, not Albanian. However, he does affirm that both Parthian and Middle Persian (which are very close and to large extent mutually intelligble languages) were official languages in Albania. Consequently, I have found higher quality sources (Western ones and Toumanoff (who is a well known expert) in order to avoide the disputes above) and have added both languages in the infobox. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Middle Persian as the official language of Sassanids is a well known fact and Albania was part of the Sassanid empire. A source has been added with this regard. Here is a quote from the same source as Twilightchill was using with regards to Middle Persian. Gadjiev states about Middle Persian: "To summarize the argument briefly, it is evident that the Middle Persian language and writing had official status in early medieval Albania) [24].
The same book again states:"It is worth emphasizing that the official seal of the Christian church of Albania was inscribed with Middle Persian writing, for it clearly demonstrates that the large cultural and political influence of Iran and shows that Middle Persian language and writing permeated not only the Albanian elite but also the ecclestial elite" (pg 105, ibid). Note usually the elites were actually Parthian (like the Arsacid dynasty of Albania) and not Albanian (speakers of Caucasian languages). The same with the elites of Armenia and Georgia at the same time.
As per
Parthian, again Albania was ruled by the Parthians. The same source twilightchill highlighted is clear about the Parthian language and its usage in Albania: "“It is possible therefore, that the establishment in Albania of Arsacid Parthian dynasty, which ruled Iran from the late third century BC through the early third century AD, that the language and literature for the administrator and the record-keeping of the imperial chancellery for external affairs naturally became Parthian and that the system in turn was based on the Aramaic script” "
[25].
As I personally do not know how reliable the author is, however, I brought the more exact statement of the well known scholar Cyrill Toumanoff: "Whatever the sporadic suzerainty of Rome, the country was now a part—together with Iberia (East Georgia) and (Caucasian) Albania, where other Arsacid branched reigned—of a pan-Arsacid family federation. Culturally, the predominance of Hellenism, as under the Artaxiads, was now followed by a predominance of “Iranianism,” and, symptomatically, instead of Greek, as before, Parthian became the language of the educated"(Toumanoff, Cyril. The Arsacids. Encyclopædia Iranica). See also Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 12:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)