Talk:Caucasian Albania/Archive 4

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)

It is directly related to the history of Albania. Don't remove sourced info, references have been provided. Grandmaster 11:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The region was not part of Albania in the 2nd c. BC, it was not conquered from Albania, thus it is not related with this article. --Vacio (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For that particular reason it has a direct relevance to the article.--Grandmaster 18:22, 21 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, Khoikhoi 06:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope your intermediation will help to improve this section, I belive the current version is too chaotic and contains misleading information.

• First of all, this article must contain only information about the population of CA, not Armenia or any other state. The right bank of Kura in 2nd c. BC was part of Armenia, therefore the people who lived there represented the population of Armenia, and I can't understand why it must be represented as the ethnic condition of CA. After 387 AD the right bank of Kura was part of CA, an thus now it represented the population of CA, although it was ethnically heavy Armenian:

In 387 A. D., the various peoples of Arc'ax and Utik', whether Armenians, Armenicized aborigines, or both, passed under Albanian rule, which under these condition, would have meant that to the various ethnic elements comprising the Albanians north of the Kur a number of others was added to the south. That these peoples were highly Armenicized and that many were actually Armenians per se cannot be doubted.

Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," p. 35-36

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)

I prupose, the following consensus version:

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.

---

1. [1]
2. [2]

   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)
3. [3]

   Hewsen, Robert H (2001). Armenia: A Historcial Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-2263-3228-4.
4. [4]

   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.
5. [5]

   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)
6. [6]

   Strabo, Geography. 11.4.1
7. [7]

   Strabo. Geography, book 11, chapter 14.

My starting point is to make it as simple possible and to avoid controversial, incorrect or unrelated information, as well as quotes out of their contex. For more information about the popultaion of the right bank of Kur, see Arran#People--Vacio (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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. --Grandmaster 09:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I never asserted that the population of the right bank of Kura was of Armenian origin. According to Robert Hewsen, it originally comprised various non-Armenian elements, who, after the region became part of Armenia, were gradually Armenized: Is seems likely that except of Siwnik, eastern Armenia was not much more than armenized, if that (Armenia: A Historical Atlas, p. 58). The problem is, that you are actually representing the ethnic condition of eastern Armenia in 2nd c. BC, as the ethnic condition of Caucasian Albania, which only in 387 acquired the region in question. In 387, however, the ethnic condition of this region was not the same as in 2nd c. BC, when the non-Armenian or pre-Armenian ethnic elements of Artsakh and Utik were already heavy Armenized. My second objection is, that you are representing a certain ethnic condition out of context. Certainly, according to Hewsen, the non-Armenian ethnic elements of the right bank of Kura were not replaced by Armenian or proto-Armenian elements, rather were Armenized (which means that they intermarried and were gradually absorbed by the Armenian people, but maintained for a long time their local, tribal attributes). Also, when we discuss ethno-historic issues, we should distinguish a theory from a fact. It is not sure, but rather a unverified theory that the proto-Armenans came from Balkans:

There are essentially four theories concerning the origin of the Armenian people, which we may call respectively the Armenian tradition, the Greek tradition, the modern consensus, and the latest hypothesis. Each has its supporters as well as its supporting evidence but it is important to note of them can be as yet proved and it is unlikely that firm proof will ever be possible to attain.

In short, I argue with that quoting an author out of context is a good choice, in such way the article becomes become more and more chaotic and illegible. Instead, we should try to reflect what the sources essentially contend. --Vacio (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never assert that the population of the right bank was the same throughout various periods. The article says that the population was non-Armenian and mostly non-Indo-European before the Armenian conquest, and that it was mixed by the time it passed under the Albanian rule. This is what the sources say. And there are theories that are generally accepted, and there are fringe theories like that of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov, which are not popular anywhere outside of Armenia. Of course, such theories should be distinguished from each other, and not given equal weight. --Grandmaster 10:02, 31 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.--Grandmaster 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is. And the two sources supplement each other. Iranica says that the Albanians are mentioned... as being etc. Hewsen seys that this mention is perhaps anachronistic and that certain Caucasian Albania first appears in history in the 1st century BC. --Vacio (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed a particular sentence from a book that is political rather than historical: 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)

Thanks, Nepaheshgar. That was the sentence I concerned about. --Vacio (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My concern was though not when Caucasian Albanians appeared but that book itself is not about Caucasian Albanian and ancient historiography but politics/myth-making and how Caucasian Albanians were fitted into the historiography. For example, it mentions a people called "Atropathenes" when such people are not mentioned or to claim Caucasian Albanians founded Christian Kingdoms when it was actually Iranian Parthian/Persians who founded Christian Kingdoms in the Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Albania) or geographical designations that were created in the 20th century (note the book is about politics). As far as I can tell, the oldest mention of Albanians is around Gagamela(per Iranica). Although since it was a Caucasian language, the actual people (that is the 26 tribes of Strabo or their ancestors) could have been there possibly a millennium or more before that.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:40, 24 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)

My quick notice is that if two third-party scholars write 'Azerbaijan', then it is rather Azerbaijan. brandспойт 09:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No it's not and it still wouldn't be if 2000 authors did.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents without getting involved in the Azeri-Armenia aspect of the article (I am interested in the Medes, Achaemenids, Parthian and Sassanid aspect). Many Caucasian related articles (Georgia, Armenia, Caucasian Albania) are trying to minimize the Iranian cultural aspect and so scholarly sources with this regard should be added. For example note how the city of Barda' is attributed to myths/legend where-as the actual city was created by Sassanids.

For this situation though, we should mention Caucasian Albania is roughly equivalent to the territory of modern republic of Azerbaijan. At the same time, the mentioned book is not about ancient history but rather political historiography/nation building and the actual citation of that book is not correct, since the name of article should be mentioned and the writer, and the name of the article is about nation building. Plus the nation-building historiography of that section is wrong (which it is supposed to be since it is quoting nation-building books). The Albanians did not emerge' in 500 BC since they were under Achaemenid empire although the actual people (that is Caucasian Albanians whose language is the ancestor of modern Lezgi and Udi) probably lived in the area way before 500 B.C. They are just first mentioned in 330 B.C., but the ancestors of such languages as Udi/Lezgi go back to at least 1000 B.C.. So the sentence is factually wrong. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I gather there was a strong Iranian influence in the area. It is generally believed that the Armenians conquered the right bank of Kura from Medes. Albanians fought on the side of the Persians against Alexander the Great. And the first dynasty of Albania was native to the region, but bore the Persian title of Aranshah. Albania was a small state that had to bow to the regional powers, such as Romans and Persians. The Roman influence is not well researched, but the Romans kept their garrisons in Albania, the one near Baku is best known, the Roman inscriptions still exist in Gobustan. I think we should write that Albanians first time were mentioned in chronicles in 330 B.C., as their kingdom did not exist at the time, the kingdom of Albania emerged in 2nd - 1st century B.C., but people did exist. --Grandmaster 10:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense.. I am not sure about the Median era but Achaemenid era is certain to be part of the Persian empire. ALso first time mentione 330 B.C. makes sense but people did exist before that..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:54, 27 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)

I suggest delaying at least. The independence of CA is confirmed by various sources (that of 1854 can not be dismissed just because it is purportedly obsolete) whereas some other points are supported only by Iranica. Indeed it is written by third party scholars, but honestly I don't expect them to follow objectivity in questions that are somehow important for Iranians. The alleged Persian dominance is presumptive and should be dealt with via WP:UNDUE. Even Swietchowski quoted here does not explicitly say that CA was Persian-controlled. brandспойт 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I just checked the 1854 source and there was nothing there, so I am deleting it based on the fact that no such thing is mentioned. Note the book is available for free online. . Of course it could been deleted based on the fact that it is oudated (for example no one uses Encyclopedia 1911 if Britannica 2008 says something different), but it was deleted because no such statement was there. On Iranica, it is 3rd party Western scholars Chaumont and Bosworth with specific articles. We can't add conspiracy theories. In actuality books on the NK conflict should not be used and obviously Soviet sources. The Iranica articles are written within the scope of ancient historiography and not modern politics. And the same points made in Iranica can be found in dozens of book. And for Iranians, wether CA was dependent, client state, controlled by Sassanids and etc. has no political significance today. Only for couple of people like me (and to tell you the truth I think I might be the only Iranian in 70 million but no more than a handful), who care about the USSR politicization, likes to get the facts straight in the Caucasus article and make sure history is written unbiasedly. If CA was independent, then obviously maps of Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid empire would not contain it, but there are hundreds of books on Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanids which show their geographical extent and all of them contain CA. Just do a google books search for maps of Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid empire and you will see it is not few sources. Swietchowski mentions Medes as well where-as Chaumont is more cautious, although again Siwetchowski is not a good source with regards to ancient historiography, but I mention him because you can't say he is biased. The political status of CA or multiple kingdoms within it, need to be discussed in each separate section of different periods. A blanket statement when it was obviously under Achaemenid control should not be added in the introduction. Also the Armenian influence starts after Iranian kings of Armenia adopted Christianity in order to make themselves independent of Sassanids, but this is from 320-330 A.D.. So that portion needs to be dealt with in its own historical section. So if you have valid sources (from actual Western historians), then I have no problem discussing the status of CA at different junctions from the Median era till the Arab invasion. But please no conspiracy theories that Chaumont, Bosworth or etc. are biased.. I can show dozens of maps from google books on Sassanid, Achaemenid and Parthian empires. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If CA was a somehow dependent realm in antiquity, then why it is not depicted as such? So far no map I have seen presents Albania as incorporated into Persian empire prior to Sassanids. Different sources do not support Iranica's notion on that.

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 :) brandспойт 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first source is about Roman era and is outdated. The title of the book is: "A dictionary of Greek and Roman geography " and it scope is such. Furthermore, to show it is outdated: "Of the history of Albania there is almost nothing said. The people nominally submitted to Pompey, but remained really independent". Nothing about Achaemenids. Not Sassanids.. It is about the era of pompey. It is outdated 1852 source, you cannot use it in an article written for 2009 since much work has been done in the 20th century. Your second source is not scholarly and not written by historians: "Alexander the great also acquired territory in northern Azerbaijan and called it Caucasian Albania!". It contradicsts both Wiesehofer, and Iranica, Britannica and is not written by a historian. The person that wrote that book is not historian. But even she covers the Achaemenid era, which shows it was part of the Achaemenid Persian empire. Your third source is about the Roman era. You are in serious violation of Wikipedia policy by WP:synthesis, since you are using the fact that Albania was independent in the Roman era, you are claiming it was independent in Achaemenid, Mede, Parthian and Sassanid era. Where-as in my introduction I have covered all sources and periods.

As per maps . I would definitely read wikipedia policies and not push anything. Sassanids did not conquer Albania in the 5th century. It is already mentioned as a province in the Shapur inscription. What they did was direct rule of the area after removing the entrusted Iranian (not Caucasian Albanian background) kings (whom they entrusted with ruling the area) who were member of the Sassanid royal aristocracy. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And you are contradicting yourself too: So no scholar consensus on Albanian subjection throughout antiquity. So then why are you claiming it so? Yes no one said it was the whole period but the scope of the article is at least from the Median era up to the Arab invasion where the article then transitions to Arran/Sherwan. Your two sources that were academic (although the 1852 was outdated) are talking about the Roman era. Not Achaemenid, Median, rise of Parthians in the area , Sassanid era and etc. But you are violating WP:synthesis by making a blank statement.

SO the Roman era does not apply to the Achaemenid era: "Achaemenid rule in the Caucasus region was established, at the latest, in the course of the Scythian campaign of Darius I in 513-12 BCE. The Persian domination of the cis-Caucasian area (the northern side of the range) was brief, and archeological findings indicate that the Great Caucasus formed the northern border of the empire during most, if not all, of the Achaemenid period after Darius."

Or the Sassanid era: "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 marzbān who held the real civil, religious, and military power. The marzbāns had their seat at Pʿartaw, the capital, where in the 5th and 6th centuries they minted silver coinage (cf. Trever, Ocherki, p. 251). "

Or the Median era: --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please also start using some academic sources and not random authors. The sources you brought had to do with the Roman era except the Liberman source which is not WP:RS(and incidentally says the Achaemenids controlled the Caucasus and has a large section on them) and does not have the weight of Iranica, Britannica, Wiesehofer, Chaumont, Whittow and historians. Even I hesistate to quote non-historians about that era like Siwetchowski who states: "From the time of ancient Media and Achaemenid Persia, Azerbaijan (he means the republic) was drawn into the orbit of Iran", but you are going after any source that can claim contrarian viewpoint without looking at the qualification of its author. The other political book source also says it came under direct Persian rule (which you did not quote. So please mind WP:synthesis, you cannot extend the independence Albania in the Roman era to the Achaemenid era. That Achaemenids and more likely Medes controlled the lower Caucasus is well known and I do not need to add 10+ sources to make a point here. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, the source can not be dismissed because it is old, one should also demonstrate that the notion it holds is outdated. Furthermore, as we know it was the 19th century that saw a striking interest in history and archaeology. Persian domination in CA was not continuous, looks like here we have a consensus. brandспойт 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can.. To give a more extreme example, if a source says the earth is flat and it is from the 14th century, then it is dismissed. 1852 is awfully outdated. Of course we can do an RFC on this, but I have no problem with the 1852 source since it is referencing the Roman era around Pompey and is not discussing say Achaemenid era. In general, I prefer anything above 1950s or so. Yes I agree Iranian domination was not continous, the source for example you have refers to the Roman era where I agree there was independent kingdom. But at the same time, your source does not deny it was part of the Achaemenid empire either or for that matter Parthian, Sassanid empires. So that is why I gave all the different scenarios in the introduction.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:40, 27 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)

Your analogy to flat Earth is extreme indeed :) If a notion in some old source is confirmed by several modern, then I think it has a weight, especially if one has nothing against the author. GSE is not perfect, but no one has dismissed it at WP:RSN yet. Again, if GSE's statements are backed by several modern scholars (and there are such points), then I see no reason to call it unreliable and remove. Anyway thanks for rapport and compromiss in the lead. brandспойт 20:35, 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 . 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)

I think the reference from this book is important as two Armenian scholars also support the notion (I addressed that issue at NK talk):

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

But it seems like the authors contradict each other per above. brandспойт 19:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is with regards to Roman time, not the whole period of the article from at least Medes to the Arab era (where the article transitions to Arran and Sherwan). The same author also wrotes:During the first centuries AD Albania, like Armenia, was governed by Arsacids (Arshakuni) dynasty, installed by Persians. So who is cherry picking? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that a source should be removed because it is "political" is a strange assertion to make. Nepaheshgar, you don't want the Soviet Encyclopedia to be used because it is, according to you, "politicised". Unless you came to this opinion on your own, you got it from history books that talk about the politicisation of history during the Soviet period. In other words, you are using a type of source (history books that deal with the politial aspects of history) to remove the Soviet Encyclopedia source, and moments later eliminating the very same type of source that you used to justify removing the Soviet Encyclopedia! Actually, from what I've read, the Soviet Encyclopedia is known to be fairly accurate about ancient history - it's only when it gets to the 19th century period that it starts to be inaccurate and biased. Meowy 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Encyclopedia is inaccurate. See: "Slezkine, Yuri. “The Soviet Union as a Communal Apartment.” in Stalinism: New Directions. Ed. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Routledge, New York, 2000.". ""Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia’" Prof. Dr. Bert G. Fragner ".. and etc. Materials with regards to Azerbaijan was written in order to minimize influence of connection with Iran (and also Turkey). For example Babak Khorramdin was portrayed as a rebel that together united Azeris, Armenians, Georgians...Overall the historiography of the USSR was not scientific and I can find numerous examples, but direct quotes exist on miminimizing Iranian influence. Materials with regards to Armenia were also written heavily with Urartu in mind and materials with regards to Georgia, Albania, Armenia and etc. were written to hide the fact that many of the kings/rulers were actually Iranian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a cherrypicking actually. brandспойт 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No it is not cherry picking. Books should be primarily about the subject (history) and not politics. The same author also wrotes:During the first centuries AD Albania, like Armenia, was governed by Arsacids (Arshakuni) dynasty, installed by Persians. So who is cherry picking? --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should avoid politically motivated sources, however if such sources on both sides agree on something, they could be used to support the point they agree about. --Grandmaster 10:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Why should a topic of history be written by authors who are not historians? If the primary goal is to create an Encyclopedia and not a political manifesto, it makes sense to give primacy to authors who write about this era and are not affiliated with any political entity (say USSR, Caucasus, Iran). Unless there is stuff about politicization of Caucasian Albanian history, we should rely on materials by historians who have written about that period: Hewsen, Chaumont, Wiesehoefer, Minorosky and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is recognised that there is a difference between "politically motivated sources" and "works with political rhetorics that are not about ancient historiography". The former are unlikely to be suitable for sources, the latter could be perfectly legitimate. Meowy 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that is legitimate for Wikipedia. My emphasis in writing any article is to use specialists in the field. For example, lets take the Iranica article on Albania. It is written for a specialist Encyclopedia and you do not find the author who is an expert using sources that have nothing to do with modern conflicts. By the way on USSR sources in general: "Azerbaijan history was re-written to establish the existence of strong friendly relations between Russia and Azerbaijan in the past and to deny close cultural ties with Persia of which for hundreds of years Azerbaijan was an integral part. Vigorous attempts were made to snap Azerbaijan’s cultural ties with Iran."(Muslims Under the Czars and the Soviets by J.G. Tiwari, 1984, AIRP).

As per GSE, I finally found the article. Did a google translation. Here are some of funny comicbook highlights for nation-building consumptions: "the people of AK along with the peoples of Armenia and Georgia waged a heroic struggle against the incursions of the ancient Romans in the Transcaucasus ". "In the 3-5 centuries. emerging feudal relations, expedited approval of this Christianity as state religion." (note nothing about Iranian Parthians ruling this area and Arsacid dynasty which was later approved by Sassanids). "AK(Albania) was one of the most active participants antisasanidskogo rebellion (450-451), led by Prince Vartan Armenian Mamikonyanom." This is not correct. Albania sided with Sassanid Persia and was fairly royal client kingdom as Mark Withow pointed out. And these battles Sassanid Persia/Albania and Armenia were battles fought by Iranian princes/aristocrats of these regions. The USSR or some people have intrepreted the Zoroastrian-Christianity battle of Armenia and Sassanid empire as a battle between "Persians\Iranians and Armenians". In reality, both sides were ruled by Iranians and would have had Zoroastrian/Christian Armenians/Albanians in their army. It was a religious struggle. It goes further: "In 6 of the. Sasani eliminated Albanian dynasty kings, but in 7. as a result of the continuing struggle against oppression AK sasanidskih shahinshahov its independence was restored.". This is false, the Sassanids actually re-established monarchy here and then created several other fiefdoms too. Note how it uses words as "heroic struggles", "Sassanid oppression" and etc, these sources are highly biased when it comes to potrayl of Iran. So that is why I just prefer Western sources written by historians who specialize in this region. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Soviet historiography can be discarded altogether, Such Russian experts of the era as Kamilla Trever, or Igor Diakonov, or Piotrovsky, and many others, had international recognition and are referred to by modern scholars all over the world. GSE should be used with caution, because it was a politically motivated source, but at the same time it provided a lot of statistics and other info that is very useful. But generally, I agree that we should give preference to professional historians, since this article is about the ancient history. --Grandmaster 06:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is true I am not ruling out totally. But one can even see big difference between the original book on Media by Diakonov and Diakonov's Cambridge history of Iran article in 1982 (when the USSR was more open). Overall though, using terms such as heroic struggle and downplaying Sassanid/Parthian influence seems to be present in USSR material, but now this is being rectified slowly.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but one can distinguish between propaganda style writings and more objective ones. I think we should discuss the actual sources to verify their reliability. When using sources, the quotes should be provided for everyone to see the context. --Grandmaster 10:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

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.--Grandmaster 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have compromissed the lead with Nepaheshgar, let's see what he says. brandспойт 10:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the shorter is the better. No need to cram the entire history of the region into the lead. --Grandmaster 13:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. My other concern is that the Albanian kingdom was within the Achaemenid state for a very short period (as being founded in the twilight of Achaemenids, according to this source in the late 4th-early 3rd century BC) whereas the foreign ascendancy over Albanian throne still assumes the independent kingdom which was unincorporated till Sassanids (thus being independent throughout most of its history). brandспойт 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Webster dictionary is actually referencing Wikipedia(it says WP) which makes it invalid. On the intro I'll await you guys suggestion. I am just concerned the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid is generalized by the Roman era when there was an independent Albanian kingdom until the rise of the Iranian pan-Parthian dynasty of Albania. Possibly we can take it from Iranica and while mentioning it corresponds roughly to modern republic of Azerbaijan and Daghestan.. Here is what Iranica says:"ALBANIA (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ), an ancient country in the Caucasus (for Albania in Islamic times, see Arrān). It was bounded on the north by the Ceraunian mountains, an extension of the Caucasus, on the east by the Caspian Sea, and on the south by the lower course of the Araxes (Aras); on the west its frontiers were unstable: The frontier along the Kura (Kor), affirmed by Strabo (Geography 11.14.5), was repeatedly overrun, to the advantage sometimes of the Albanians, sometimes of the Armenians. 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).". We can leave the political history for different periods in it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:23, 29 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. --Grandmaster 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]

Grandmaster 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.--Grandmaster 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind. brandспойт 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is basically how I also added it here: . And I beleive given the various opinions it is best to keep the introduction short and brief and neutral. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad that everyone agrees with this. This has been resolved, thanks everyone for your efforts. --Grandmaster 06:19, 31 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)

Also, see this link where according to Robert Thomson the Aghvank wrote in Armenian for literary purposes and that Armenian was their vehicle for literary expression: -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to even your Farida Mamedova, Caucasian Albanians referred to themselves as Aghvank: .-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My long term proposal is leaving only Greek in parentheses as it is the only one who has a direct relation to etymology and the article's name. The rest could be moved to the appropriate subsection. brandспойт 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes little sense, the article is in English and the English name is identical to the Greek name because it's based on the Greco-Roman designation for the country.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggest :) Specifically, how about this: Caucasian Albania (via Latin Albānia, from Ancient Greek Ἀλβανία "mountainous land",^[1] the native name for the country is unknown^[4]). brandспойт 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's cool and all and it explains the origin of the English name but you're still not offering a new reason for removal of Aghvank.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We have Aghuank, as well as wiktionary:Caucasian Albania. I think placing Armenian lower would de-politicize the issue. brandспойт 19:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aghvank is the most relevant term because it was the name which those who claimed to be natives called it by. And every piece of material coming as Aghvank from the natives was written in Armenian. The Greek Albania does not refer to Albania AD, they're not geographically the same. Next time you revert and remove the Armenian term I will be reporting you for POV pushing and this with your entire history of reverts without taking into account prior discussions. - Fedayee (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant term is Albania whose ultimate origin in this sense is Greek (so far at least) and the spoken language in the realm was (Caucasian) Albanian, not Armenian, as we know. Since we have Origin and history of the name Albania#Caucasian Albania, I don't think it is useful to clutter the English lead with Aghvank and other. brandспойт 10:04, 27 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. --Grandmaster 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why so much duplicated material? The name "Albania" is Greek and Latin, and denotes "mountainous land" - half that duplicates what is said in your Greek and Latin name origin bit. The "mountanous land" meaning could be incorporated into the first sentence. Nor is there any need for It was not ethnically or politically connected with the modern Albania in the Balkans. when This region should not be confused with modern-day Albania in south-eastern Europe. is at the top of the article - one or the other should go. Nor is their any need for "old Armenian", "Armenian" alone will do. Meowy 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it remained a region long after it had faded away as a distinct country, so I've changed it to "an ancient country and region". Meowy 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. As for the region, it was called Arran. There's an article about it. It is Albania in Persian. Grandmaster 05:31, 2 May 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)

How reliable is this painting? Is the author a recognised specialist? A direct witness (hem)? Unless satisfying answers are given to these questions, there's no place for this painting here. Sardur (talk) 21:16, 3 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)

What "3rd party international source"? All I see is a clearly fictional map, and a badly drawn one at that. The map was introduced without any discussion, though doubtlessly you didn't even notice that thanks to your usual blind POV warring. So please, explain your edits. Meowy 01:26, 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)

All I see is "work by uploader" and a fictional description. Meowy 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The areas that overlap between Armenia and Caucasian Albania (particularly Artsakh) need to be qualified with dates before that map is permissible. Otherwise it's simply confusing. Removing the map for now as it is of little value without dates... Serouj (talk) 03:06, 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)

I restored it back. C.Albania is part of the history of Azerbaijan. It covered most of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. Grandmaster 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

C.Albania being part of Azerbaijan history doesn't make Azerbaijan part of C.Albania history. It distracts people from the main article. I don't see why anybody interested in C.Albania be interested in Black January or March days. Lida Vorig (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it is part of the history of the country. See the article History of Azerbaijan, it has a section on Albania. Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan, therefore it is a part of the history of the country. Grandmaster 07:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But not vice-versa! That is, the history of Caucasian Albanian does not equal the history of Azerbaijan. Serouj (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. It constitutes only a small part of the history of Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 10:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If Azerbaijan was a cultural heir of Caucasian Albania then we could include Azerbaijan. But Caucasian Albanians were a mix of Caucasian, Iranian and Armenian political and cultural traditions. The last time I checked Azerbaijanis were Turks, yes? I suggest to include Dagestan as reference, not Azerbaijan. Dagestanis are closer to Udins. Aptak (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, most Azeris in Azerbijan are probably the descendants of the Caucasian Albanians. A few Turkish tribes came along and declared them all to be Turkish... I don't see why modern-day Azeris should accept this view. They are really Christians and Caucasians! Not central Asians! Serouj (talk) 02:24, 9 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. Grandmaster 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Albania is an important part of the history of Azerbaijan." Understand that the opposite does not hold true. Serouj (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In no way is Cau. Albania an important part of the history of [Turkic] Azerbaijan. Cau. Albania is part of the history of Lezgistan and Avaristan (southern Dagestan). Aptak (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. Open any source on the history of the country of Azerbaijan, and you'll see that it has a chapter on Albania, or mentions it. I'm looking at Template:Armenia topics. For some reason it mentions Urartu, which had nothing to do with Armenian people. Why? Grandmaster 10:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This may or may not be true. But the fact is that "History of Armenia" template is not on Urartu's page. Aptak (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is: Grandmaster 10:38, 17 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. --Grandmaster 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For once, I fully agree with Grandmaster. Sardur (talk) 05:52, 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.

Grandmaster 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)

I think it should have its own article Arran (Caucasus), same as Iranica has articles both on Albania and Arran. The difference is that Albania was a kingdom, and Arran (which is Persian/Arab for Albania) was just a geographic region, without any statehood. The term falls out of use about 13th century A.D. --Grandmaster 11:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

um, you just linked to the same page twice over, the iranica.com article on "Albania (Iranian Aran, Arm. Ałuankʿ)". If there was any doubt whether the two names were synonyms, this would appear to settle it. --dab (𒁳) 18:33, 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)

You missed the Iranica article on Arra . See what it states there: "In pre-Islamic times, Arrān formed the heart of the province of Caucasian Albania (to be distinguished of course from the Balkan Albania), which in fact embraced all eastern Transcaucasia, i.e. Arrān here was a wider concept than that of post-Islamic Arrān, and corresponded grosso modo with the modern Azerbaijan SSR. "

And this part: ARRĀN, a region of eastern Transcaucasia. It lay essentially within the great triangle of land, lowland in the east but rising to mountains in the west, formed by the junction of the Rivers Kur or Kura and Araxes or Aras. It was thus bounded on the north by Šervān; on the north west by Šakkī (Armenian Šakʿe) and Kaxeti in eastern Georgia; on the south by Armenia and Azerbaijan; and on the southeast by the Caspian coastal province of Mūqān or Mūgān. Arrān’s situation between these two great rivers explains the name Bayn al-nahrayn given to it by Islamic geographers.

That is Arran in pre-Islamic time was Caucasian Albania but post-Islamic era, it was not and was usually between the two rivers. For example in the Ilkhanid era,Hamdollah Mostowfi mentions: "... The Shirvan country extends from the bank of the Kura River to Darband of the Gate of Gates. The revenues thereof during the days of the Khans of Shirvan amounted to one million dinars of the money of our time; but at present, all that is inscribed on the registers is 113,000 dinars. Further in the matter of the military fiefs there are many of these in the divers districts. ... The Arran province is the land Between the Rivers'’ namely from the bank of the Aras to the river Kur.".

A dynasty by the name Shirvanshah ruled Shirvan for most of its post-Islamic history, but this has nothing to do with a people called Caucasian Albanians or a the Parthian royal Caucasian Albania dynasty and the Sassanid province/satrapy of Albania. Overall, there is a rational for Iranica differentiating between Caucasian Albania and Arran (and Shirvan when the article comes out oneday). Arran really reflects the Islamicate era much better at a time when the name Caucasian Albania was not used anymore. That is extending the name Caucasian Albania to post-Islamic era for Arran and Shirvan (even if they are similar names for the same area) seems a bit out of place. For example most of what we know about Caucasian Albania is from Armenian and Latin/Greek sources and sometimes encompasses both Shirvan and Arran (post-Islamic era). Virtually all we know about post-Islamic Arran is from Persian and Arabic sources and usually this was different than Shirvan. Culturally too, one name reflects a period when Caucasian Albania was Christian, Zoroastrian and Pagan where-as Arran reflects the area when it had Islamicate culture. Also Caucasian Albanians themselves were a group related to modern Lezgins but Arran in the medieval ages had an Iranian (and a large part Kurdish) and then later Turkic speaking population. So overall the differentiator should be the conquest of Islam but one to three centuries of overlap between the articles is fine..It is true Arran in the pre-Islamic era is the same as Caucasian Albania, but Arran in the post-Islamic era is primarily (not always) the land between the two rivers mentioned. So Arran really did not always include Shirvan in the post-Islamic era although it did sometimes. Eventually the name Arran becomes Qarabagh and later on Azerbaijan. The overall boundaries between what constituted Armenia, Arran, Shervan and Azerbaijan were very fluid and you will see overlap between these in various sources (depending on the dynasty too). But Caucasian Albania strictly speaking should be used for the Christian and Zoroastrian, Sassanid, Parthian.. history of the area (in my opinion) and I think there is a good reason why Iranica has two articles on these. The article you mentioned from Iranica is "Aran", but there is one called "Arran" with a full length article. If you merge Arran to Caucasian Albania, then you would have to merge Shirvan and overall this is not really how historians write about the area in the post-Islamic era. Since to extend the definition of Caucasian Albania to post-Islamic Shirvan and Shirvanshah is very akward. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, dab is right, Albania and Arran is the same thing. Albania is the name of the country in Latin, Arran in Persian. But Nepaheshgar is right too, in Islamic times the state of Albania ceased to exist, and the name of Arran became applied to a region between the rivers of Kura and Araks. So Arran/Albania, the ancient kingdom, became a geographic concept, covering only a part of the historical state. I think that is the reason why there are 2 articles in Iranica. We can cover both the state and the region in one article, or have 2 separate articles, like Iranica does. I think both ways are possible, but if we go for 1 article, then the history of Albania needs to be extended until the 13th century A.D., when the name fell out of use. Alternatively, we can split it in 2, since in Islamic times there was a major religious, and later linguistic change, so the population of the region of Arran was not identical to the population of the kingdom. In any case, the article needs to explicitly state that the state of Albania/Arran was a wider concept than the Islamic region of Arran. I agree that Arran is not a good name, as it does not disambiguate between the country and the region. When the name change for the article about Arran was discussed, I suggested to use the name of Arran (geographic region), as opposed to Arran the country. But it received no support, since the Isle of Arran also sometimes referred to as a region. So we can split the info about the region, but we need to select an appropriate title. Btw, the article Albania (satrapy) is more of an OR kind of article, because it is not clear whether Albania was indeed a satrapy. The country was ruled by its own kings, who were vassals of the Persian shahs, and at certain points in history the kings were replaced by Persian governors. But Albania (satrapy) simply duplicates info from this one, and does not clarify when exactly the satrapy existed. So we need to do something about that one too. Grandmaster 05:33, 13 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)

I see no convincing arguments either. Albania covered most of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic, so the template belongs here. Grandmaster 18:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a part of Azerbaijan's history. Not really sure, why the template is removed. It doesn't cause any harm and is not a contested territory or anything. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Caucasian Albania is part of the history of Azerbaijan is wrong because it would be like saying that Caucasian Albanians are Azeri, although it is certainly not the case. Caucasian Albania is as distinct to Azerbaijan as Georgia and Armenia are. --Davo88 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a historic realm, that encompassed generally Azerbaijan's territory, so talking about distinctness here is irrelevant. There are numerous similar examples of some other countries. Besides, nobody says C. Albanians were Azeris, but they were their historical predecessors. Brandmeister[t] 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The historic predecessors of Azeris are neither the ancient Albanians, nor the Atropatenians. Azerbaijanis are a Turkic people born from the 10th-11th century Turkic migration in the region, and gained independent statehood only in the early 20th century. --Davo88 (talk) 21:20, 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)

And what does Urartu have to do with Armenia and Armenians? Nothing at all, yet we have the Armenian topics template there. Like it or not, but C. Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan, and is a part of the history of this country, as any other historic state that existed there. Grandmaster 07:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Read "Armenian ethnogenesis" in the Urartu page. It explains well the relation between Urartu and Armenians.--Davo88 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Is ancient Gaul irrelevant to France? Or Neustria? :) There was no gap in the history of Azerbaijan between, say, 1st century AD and 3rd. Caucasian Albania almost entirely embraces the ancient period of Azerbaijan's history, this is promptly verifiable, and I can't still comprehend the stance why CA is irrelevant. I propose ceasing of this lame edit war, at least one of them would depart. Brandmeister[t] 16:26, 30 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)

It is not some, who believe that Urartians were not Armenians, it is generally agreed between scholars that Urartians were not Armenians. The language of Urartians was related to Caucasian languages. It is the claim of nationalistic Armenian authors that Urartu was the same as Armenia, and this was harshly criticized by experts in Armenian studies. How come that the template of Armenia is there? Shireen Hunter has no idea what she is talking about, I can point many factual mistakes in her work. The territory north of Araks was referred to as Azerbaijan before the 20th century, but it has nothing to do with this topic. And it is strange that you are accusing me of reverting the article, while you yourself have already made 3 rvs here, without any consensus at talk that the template must be removed. Grandmaster 20:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And indeed, I see that the template of history of France is included in the article about Gaul, while Gauls were not French. So what is the problem here? I wanna see some logical explanation. Grandmaster 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to go in overblowing your case. Putting aside the fringe elements, you are never going to encounter a scholar, whether it is Diakonov or B. Piotrovsky, who would even contemplate completely separating Armenia and the Armenians from Urartu. There is a tangible link between the two and, I don't know about you, but we should be very thankful for their trailblazing studies on the subject.

It was never referred to as such and you know it. From a geographical standpoint, Azerbaijan was the lands south of the Araks, and if some overzealous politicians at Downing Street or Peterhof referred to it as such in the nineteenth century, it was obviously due to their own crude and ahistorical machinations at the height of the period of the Great Game. My second paragraph was directed towards Brandmeister and I don't think many will disagree when I say that his edits are highly disruptive, especially when an active discussion is going on, and he decides to impose his will unilaterally.

Yes Gaul is included and so is the Carolingian Empire but like I said above, they make a far more stronger case in historical connections than do CA and Azerbaijan even though they can hardly be called "French." What exactly is Azerbaijan's connection to the Albanians? Their religion? their language? the alphabet? their cultural monuments, or lack thereof? If it's simply the fact that it partially occupies the same territory, that translates into nothing. Using your logic, would you include the History of Turkey template onto the articles of Urartu or the Hittie empire? And please refrain from diverting the discussion by dragging in what Armenians are doing. If anything, the Albanians were more closer to the Armenians and the Georgians.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Marshall, Azerbaijan is the Caucasian Albania, unlike armenia who have not even have caucasian chromosome genes. --NovaSkola (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NS, you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want in your fantasy land.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

And what does Gaul have to do with France? What do France and Gaul have in common? Language? Religion? And why then History of France template is there? Because it was located on the territory of France. And yes, history of Turkey template needs to be included in the article about Urartu, it is a part of the history of the territory of Turkey. The templates are included by territorial principle, because the history of every country includes all the states that ever existed on its territory. Inclusion of Armenian topics template into the article about Urartu cannot be justified by any other reason, Urartians were not Armenians, they spoke a completely different language. I also see Iraqian topics template in the articles about Sumer, Assyria and Akkad. Clearly, those nations did not speak Arabic. How about Peru template in the article about Inca Empire? I can cite many more examples. So it is obvious that there's no reason for removal of Azerbaijani history template from this article. Grandmaster 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just grasping for straws, Grandmaster. Anyone who has studied those regions knows that while there is no straight line linking the modern community to that of the ancient one, there are shades of continuity and, above all, evolution. In France, e.g., by the twelfth century, the early French vernacular was being used in literature in a land which was thoroughly Catholic Christian. No, there was no concept of the modern nation-state, but it would be absurd to claim that there was no connection between the two, and even more ridiculous to claim that the medieval world had inherited nothing from Gallic-Roman one. Your logic is a game of mental gymnastics: Turkey was a successor to the Ottoman Empire, which was a cultural and ethnic inheritor of the dilapidated Byzantine Empire and the Turkic groups that migrated there in the eleventh century onwards, but an Iron Age kingdom all because of the fact that they're on the same territory? That's stretching it. You may highlighting problems which may be symptomatic on Wikipedia and for that we're all going to have to read this OTHERCRAPEXISTS and treat this article with some common sense.

Urartians may not have been Armenians and they did not speak an Indo-European language, but they certainly were in material and ethnic contact with one another far before the Urartian empire fell (scholars who believe that the Armenians settled in the Armenian Plateau date that to roughly 1200 B.C.). Urartian words are now found in the Armenian language (such as the Armenian word for eagle, artziv), Urartian-type art was found in the realms of the first real Armenian dynasty, the Yervandunis, and so forth. There is some shared characteristics.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Albanians also played an important role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people, but that is not important for this issue. Ethnicity has nothing to do with this. Templates are included according to the different criteria. What is important here is that Albania was located on the territory of modern-day Azerbaijan, therefore it is a part of the history of this country. The rest is immaterial for inclusion of the template. I already demonstrated that the same principle is used everywhere else. If you still insist on removal of the template, let's ask for the third opinion. We've done that before. But I really see no reason to waste other people's time, it is obvious that the template belongs here, and edit warring will not help to remove it. Grandmaster 20:46, 1 May 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)

Both Albanian capitals were located in Azerbaijan: Qabala and Barda, the latter being the seat of Albanian Church since 551/52. Besides, initially CA was pagan, like nearly all historical predecessors of modern states. Secondly, the inscriptions with Albanian characters were also found in Azerbaijan (Mingachevir). Even some Armenian authors establish CA's immediate relevance to Azerbaijan:

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

I've seen no reliable source, which challenges Albania's relevance to Azerbaijan. Brandmeister[t] 12:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Wow, looks like Hewsen discovered something new :) Why "the so-called"? What Hewsen suggests? That non-Christian Albania has been pagan throughout the entire period of its existence? Why "new"? Which author refers to the realm as "New Albania"? "Transfer from Kabala"? Qabala was the original capital of CA until the 5th century transfer to Barda. I can't trust Hesen anymore, seeing such "arguments". And yes, there was no place called Azerbaijan in the Caucasian Albania period. Likewise, there was no place called France during the aforementioned Gaul period and indeed, there are many other examples. Brandmeister[t] 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It is "so called" because the term "New Albania" was invented by the Armenian nationalistic scholar Mnatsakanyan, whom Hewsen criticizes. And if there was at times an Armenian, Persian or Arabic cultural and political influence in certain parts or the whole of the territory of Albania, it is irrelevant to the template issue. Every country was at certain points in history under someone else's influence. What matters here is if Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan. According to all the sources, it was. Another source:

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.

So there's nothing to argue about. According to the general practice of Wikipedia, Azerbaijani history template needs to be included in this article. Grandmaster 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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 think that the Behistun Inscription is enough proof that Urartu and Armenia are exactly the same. The conquests of the Persian king are enumerated in three languages, and in one language the name "Urartu" is used while in two languages the name "Armenia" is used instead. This interchangeability by itself is good to show that Urartu is part of Armenian history. Just by curiosity, is there any similar situation between Caucasian Albania and Azerbaijan? I seriously doubt it.--Davo88 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Urartu was neither Christian, nor Armenian-speaking. Nonetheless, as far as I can see, there is no edit war over the presence of Armenian topics template there. Brandmeister[t] 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Urartu is irrelevant to this discussion and I don't see a History of Armenia template there either. The point here is that even the territory of Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds (as Minorsky mentions) to modern Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan considers it a part of its history, in fact throughout its history Caucasian Albania had a vital linkage with the history of Armenia. It is needless to name them all as they have been discussed many times before. I will not cite the numerous sources about the Armenian political and cultural influence on Caucasian Albania, just only a few from Minorsky whom Grandmaster quoted above:

• The special 'Albanian' patriarchate of the Armenian church formed the link between the two banks (p.506, the same work Grandmaster quoted)
• The work of the indigenous historian of 'Albania', Moses Kalankatvats'i, who wrote in Armenian (10th century), contains many important data (p 504, ibid)
• ...we have seen that the conversion of the Albanians to Christianity and the endowing of the Albanians with an alphabet were the work of the Armenians. Armenian settlers and cultural elements contributed to the further absorption of the Albanian nation. The Albanian and Armenian nobility freely intermarried, with the result that there appeared a mixed class of Albano-Armenian aristocracy. The later Armenian kingdoms of Ani and Vaspurakan had little influence in Eastern Transcaucasia but the petty Armenian rulers of Siunik' and Artsakh (south of Barda’a) played a considerable role in the affairs of Albania. (A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries. Cambridge, Heffer and Sons, 1958)

So taking into account the above quoted, my questions is: yes, I agree, CA is important for the history of Azerbaijan and it is also a very important part of the Armenian history with a direct linkage to it's culture, but who decided that it is more important for Azerbaijan? When did we discuss and agreed that the history of Azerbaijan template is more relevant here than the template history of Armenia? If some users think that only a roughly territorial correspondence is enough to prefer the first one, I will say that we never had such a consensus and there are obviously as many users who totally disagree with that argument. If the history of Azerbaijan template is placed here, the history of Armenia template mus be placed two - that is my proposition to come to a consensus. --Vacio (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed what I have wrote above about the capitals, archaeological findings etc. Naturally we don't expect Caucasian Albania to have the same borders as modern Azerbaijan, there are virtually no ancient realms with borders, that perfectly correspond to their successor states. In 488 the Council of Aluen declared the independence of Albanian Church, which until 506 (i.e. until the Council of Dvin) was not monophysite. The only source about alleged Armenian influence on Albanian alphabet is Moses Kalankatvats'i himself, Minorsky and Alexidze believe otherwise, talking about the Udi language. I don't see "many users who totally disagree" here, the only one is Armenian part. Brandmeister[t] 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Albanians and Georgians also joined the Armenians in the Battle of Avarayr to defend Christianity in the Caucasus from Sassanid Persia.--Davo88 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but the search option does not show "Albania" or "Albanian" within. In any case we know that CA was different than Armenian Kingdom. Brandmeister[t] 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a request here: Grandmaster 19:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Should the history section of Caucasian Albania contain the Template:History of Azerbaijan? Brandmeister[t] 14:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. It will be the same as to put a History of Macedonia template being in the articles about Greek history or the historical Greek Kingdom of Macedonia. Aregakn (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

HELLOOO... Brandmeister? Comment here before editing. Aregakn (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, since (the "belonging" of) the history of the country is disputed, it is much better to refrain from placing a history template of both contemporary Armenia or Azerbaijan. It's the best way to keep the article looking neutral and will save us a lot of disputes again. --vacio 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all in the article. Removal of the template is just an attempt to remove Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

remove Caucasian Albania from Azerbaijani history? In what possible way was Caucasian Albania part of "Azerbaijani history"? :Caucasian Albania part of "Azerbaijani history" is a revisionist, internationally-condemned political nonsense. In contrast, Caucasian Albania was tightly connected to Armenia. Consider this: a) a part, if not a major part, of its population was Armenian b) Armenians brought Christianity to Caucasian Albania; Caucasian Albanian church was receiving investiture from Armenian Catholicos. c) Armenians invented Caucasian Albanian alphabet and established Armenian schools (e.g. at Amaras Monastery, see that article). If (talk) and others continue this edit war, they all will be reported and blocked. Either two boxes stay, or none. Xebulon (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan whether you like it or not. Hence the template History of Azerbaijan. Albanian church was subdued to Armenian church only in the first half of the 19th century by orders of the Russian tsar, obviously. The territory of present day Armenia was populated by Muslims who at some period of time constituted the majority. Should we add the History of Azerbaijan template to Armenia too? Tuscumbia (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no "Azerbaijan" or "Azerbaijani people" at the time when Turkic-speaking nomads roamed Armenia. Armenia was never "populated" by Muslims - show me a Wiki article supporting that claim. Otherwise, we indeed could add "Azerbaijani History" box in Armenia, per your suggestion, why not? The problem is that "Azerbaijani History" begins in 1918, everything before is just speculation. However, here I note that Tuscumbia (is he another account for Atabey?) and his suspected socks TwilightChill and NovaScola have bizarre, unfounded beliefs that are not supported by any of Wikipedia articles on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Tuscumbia's continued involvement in this debate harms Wiki and is against its NPOV policy. Xebulon (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is a modern state, not a territory. It is hence not a successor state of and has not direct ties with the ancient state of Albania. IMO inclusion of the history template of Azerbaijan would be the same as adding the Template:History of Turkey in the article Byzantine Empire. --vacio 10:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A comparison with other articles might help. For example, the Iceni are not given a tag that includes them in the history of the Kingdom of Great Britain, neither is it given to the Kingdom of Mercia. Would the equivalent of Tuscumbia's argument, that the "removal of the History of the Kingdom of Great Britain template is just an attempt to remove Mercia from British history" be reasonable. No, of course not! They are given categories that relate them to regions of Britain - but Britain existed as a region during that time period so that category is justifiable. But the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category is not because the modern state of Great Britain did not exist at that time. Armenia is both a modern state and an ancient region, Azerbaijan is a modern state but it is not an ancient region. The current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan doesn't mean that the history of Azerbaijan should be given a fake extension back to the Classical period because of some dubious appeal to neutrality. A neutral category, such as History of the Caucasus, is perhaps what is needed here. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

And even the Irish Free State article is not included in the History of the Republic of Ireland category! the ROI is the successor state of the Irish Free State, so if even that doesn't get it into the category there is no chance History of Azerbaijan should get Caucasian Albania. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Xebulon, whatever it is you're saying is just the line of Armenian histography. Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was proclaimed in 1918, not history of Azerbaijan, not the region or Azerbaijani Turkic states in the region, including the area of present day Armenia. Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan and it belongs to and is cherished by the current state of Azerbaijan as part of its heritage. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it. Articles don't exist to massage the identites, cherished or not, of modern nations. Everyone in Britain is aware that the Kingdom of Mercia was an early kingdom on the territory of what became England and then Great Britain, but it is not included in the "history of the Kingdom of Great Britain" category because they are two entirely different entities for the purposes of an encyclopedia. The same is true for Caucasian Albania: it is an entirely different entity from Azerbaijan. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Then go change that article. Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage. And, please do discuss your edits. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuscumbia - you are in an ugly edit war, which will be reported in full. You were asked a million time where you saw that "Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage" and you are stubbornly refusing to engage and respond. Your claim is groundless (no surprise you cannot respond to the questions) and every normal scholar of Azerbaijan ridicules it. See the articles on Azerbaijani pseudo-scholars Ziya Buniyatov and Farida Mammadova. Xebulon (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania is a part of Azerbaijani heritage is a Point of View, Tuscumbia. --vacio 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vacio, what do you mean it's POV? Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of present day Azerbaijan and it is a part of Azerbaijani cultural heritage as much as Talysh, Lezgi, Mountain Jews, etc residing on the territory of Azerbaijan. It's a multiethnic country. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? So Azerbaijan then automatically inherited the heritage of every civilization that whose lands ended up in modern Azerbaijan? So, we should include a British info template on all pages on history of India, and Mongol template all over the world history pages? Gorzaim (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan didn't inherit it, it's just a part of it since the term Azerbaijani includes many ethnicities, Udi being one of them. That example you just gave actually perfectly applies to irrendentism of Armenian nationalists who claim lands of their neighbors just because there was an Armenian Kingdom on those lands. Then, should Italians claim half of the world because of Roman Empire, or should the Greeks claim half of Asia because there was Alexander the Great, or maybe Ottoman Empire should claim 20 present day sovereign states? Tuscumbia (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2011 (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)

A historical homeland? You mean to tell me there were Armenians from Adam and Eve living on all those territories and all of a sudden the territory started to shrink? Christian culture as much as Judaism in Azerbaijan, Islam and Zoroastrism are all part the melting pot making up the modern day Turkic state. Turks have lived in Azerbaijan since the time of Khazars and according to other theories even earlier. That's why Azerbaijan is referred to as a multiethnic and multi-religious state. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

well, as someone (vacio) said up there, Tuscumbia's opinion is just his personal opinion, which is should keep out of Wikipedia. He cannot bring any sources to verify it. Gorzaim (talk) 18:59, 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)

Yes Armenia existed, but as homeland not within the borders described in Greater Armenia. And you don't honestly think Armenians just suddenly rose up out of the blue specifically on those territories and called it Armenia, do you? The point is that whatever the size of empires were, those times are gone. That's why there are international organizations that unite the international community in their efforts to keep the world order. And yes, Turks were there way before the Oghuz Turks. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see any references to support the idea that C.Albania is part of Azerbaijan's history. Xebulon (talk) 03:03, 19 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)

I would replace Amaras with an image of St. Gregory, who built it. As for Mashtots, 4 to 5 contemporaneous primary sources say he invented three alphabets and there are no primary sources saying the opposite. Xebulon (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mashtots' pupil and biographer Koryun wrote (text here - , chapter XVI:

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 a mistranslation, see Jalilov. Besides, Yunusov, who cites Trever, writes: "According to the ancient authors, the Albanians had their own written language at least since the first century B.C. and they sent letters to the Romans". Mashtots lived centuries after that. Twilightchill t 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use acceptable academic NPOV sources and not Azerbaijani hate sites spreading propagandist misinformation. Xebulon (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And Hay/Armenian (*) alphabet was created not only on the basis of Aramaic, but also Greek and Turkic writings. lol, come on Brand, do you honestly believe that anyone will fall for this kind of nonsense? Claiming that the 26 tribes that made up Albania were Turkic (!) is as good an example of poor scholarship as you can get. Let's get some respected third party sources who actually know what they're talking about.

And everyone knows that when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Iran in 387, the Iranians undertook a number of administrative changes and made rearrangements to the internal borders of the marzpanate. This included extending the border of the Albanian kingdom to the reaches of the province of Syunik'. And the Gargarians were a mountainous people living in the Caucasus, and should not be confused with the famed Khazars of later centuries, who would make periodic raids into Armenia (though they never settled there because they were always beat back).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that Koryun, who writes about renewed alphabet, and Yunusov/Trever still stand. From the foreign sources I've read it's unclear whether Mashtots created the alphabet just for Gargarians or for the entire Albanian population. Basically, these are the concerns to be addressed. Twilightchill t 08:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Koryun never wrote that. See Charles Dowsett's translation of Movses Kaghankatvatsi's work into English. No concerns are to be addressed. Relax. Xebulon (talk) 14:17, 20 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)

Quick question, Marshall. Why exactly do you think your or account Xebulon's or account Gorzaim's edits are not controversial and TwilightChill's are? Tuscumbia (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Were I not already acquainted with Brand's habit of surreptitiously removing any notion of Armenia or Armenians in these articles (the line on the partition of Armenia, of Mashots' credit for inventing the alphabet, etc.), I would have been far more indulgent in evaluating the validity of his points. But because I am so familiar with his edits and because his above arguments are so poorly formulated and poorly supported, I'm afraid that assuming good faith will not do us any good here. We all know that the works produced by scholars in Azerbaijan would not have a snowball's chance in hell in surviving a critical review, but to see them posted here in full, as if they're reliable sources, is a waste of time for all us serious editors who actually wish to improve this article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he removes "any notion of Armenia or Armenians" the way you describe it, at the very least, not any more than you or other Armenians do or try to do. The problem with your approach to sources is that you look at them from your own personal biased point of you, considering Armenian authors superior to any Azerbaijani or other authors disproving the arguments of Armenian authors. What makes a biased Armenian author any more credible than an Azerbaijani author? Tuscumbia (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is typical disruption. C.Albanian history was written in Armenian, by an Armenian person, and a bulk of its population was Armenian. The first Armenian school was opened there by the guy who invented the Armenian alphabet. Go ahead and restore "Armenian" in the right upper template. Xebulon (talk) 22:10, 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)

Marshall, that made my day :))) Armenian authors have less reason to lie or distort reality? Really? The only reason some Armenian American authors have advanced and their works were subsequently used is because their works on the history, culture, ethnic studies since the early 1920's were pretty much unopposed due to the lack of Turkish and especially Azerbaijani diaspora in the West while the mass immigration of Armenians to western countries including the United States, Great Britain, France, Argentina, Uruguay, made its contribution to creation of basis for publications, references and sources on Armenia and Caucasus. Azerbaijani authors were censored and were pretty much limited to Azerbaijan SSR, the most their works would get out to was Moscow where the works would be edited and revised. With the independence in 1991, the realities changed, archives were opened and real contributions to histography made. No doubt that the unopposed and biased Armenian authors would get more recognition when their version of history was never contested and of course, the new emerging sources coming from newly opened archives would be contested. The fact that the new books (including by writers from the Western countries) published within the last 10 years say a different story than what was available for th last 7-8 decades because of the availability of archives and works of Azerbaijani authors. And, please, for the love of God, don't refer to Hewsen. Why would he ever write anything in favor of Azerbaijan, Baku or Azerbaijanis considering the fact that he's of Armenian heritage and quite possibly biased. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:32, 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)

Good for you. That's your personal belief. The fact that not a single words comes out about hundreds of thousands of Anatolian and Caucasian Turks from books of these "scholars" is just another proof they were not there for history, but were there to write a new version of it. Not sure why you even mentioned the Soviet Armenian authors. Armenian literature, politicians, etc always were permitted a higher position within the Soviet state. It's not because of Gorbachev, not because of Stalin but because of Peter the Great who requested a special good treatment for them back in 1725 due to Russian own strategic interests of splitting up the Turkic world. And they wrote. If you read Azerbaijani writers, you won't see any "embarassing assertions" just because their work is based on actual Soviet and Russian archives. I'm not saying Armenian authors are bad and should be completely discredited because of their bias. I am saying they are naturally biased, not necessarily because they have written and continue to write in favor of Armenian version of history but because they dismiss any reference to anything good Turkish/Turkic. If you ever read and compare both, you'll understand. Tuscumbia (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The architect of Azerbaijani school of historical science was the infamous Ziya Buniatov - an internationally-condemned and ridiculed pseudo-scholar and hate writer. All modern Azerbaijani historians are his direct or indirect disciples. Their "writings" are unacceptable because they do not measure up to international academic standards. This deplorable state of affairs is not changing because Azerbaijan is ruled by a nationalist oil dictator whose father nurtured Buniatov and provided political protection for his activities. Honest scholarship in Azerbaijan is impossible because it is simply banned by the country's autocratic and chauvinistic president-for-life. Ordinary citizens of Azerbaijan too have been harassed for speaking their mind on Armenian-related issues. Importantly, this casts doubt whether Wikipedia editors with Azerbaijani passports are fit to contribute to this encyclopedia. Keep this in mind and think twice when violating Wiki rules. Xebulon (talk) 02:55, 22 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? --vacio 11:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of marzpanate in the file description of current infobox map. Twilightchill t 15:07, 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."" 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: 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).

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” " .

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)