Talk:Caucasian Albania: Difference between revisions

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]