Talk:Caucasian Albania/Archive 3

Article's Text Has Not Been Developed Through Consensus
I am noticing that the text of the article is not based on consensual agreement in regard to different viewpoints on the history and culture of "Caucasian Albania." In its entirety, it is a concoction of a couple of Azerbajiani nationalsit editors, who have a record of engaging in edit warring and were suspected in sockpuppetry. As a result, the text is based on POVs, and is a weird and poorly organized mix of myths, prejudices and other unencyclopedic entries. Erkusukes (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why anon IPs feel free reverting an article to version by User:Erkusukes without any discussion, but this needs to stop. In fact the same IP made only one other edit inserting POV/OR in 2008 Mardakert Skirmishes article.
 * Per Meowy's edit, Minorsky source cited in that line says Aluank not Aghuank. So perhaps, he can check the reference before attempting to insert the unreferenced title next time. Atabek (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot be accountable for the inaccurate typesetting of old 1950s books! Maybe Minorsky should have gone to a better publisher. It is, as I have explained (and as an anon editor has also explained at the end of the POV section) an "ł", not an "l", and is thus pronounced "gh". Meowy 19:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And, please, Atabek do READ what I have written, don't go mindlessly doing reverts of this, like you did with Shusha pogrom. Meowy 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't have access to that specific book by Minorsky, but in his "Studies in Caucasian History" he spells it Alvank with a dot under the "l" to indicate that it is a "gh" sound - i.e. it is not an "l". That method of transliteration is not standard (but there isn't a universal standard anyway though ł is most common), so for a general readership I think it is best to render it in Wikipedia as a "gh". Meowy 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, please, assume good faith with comments like "mindless". Caucasica IV is not a book but an article from Minorsky (perhaps you should read it first) is publicly available through JSTOR and otherwise, and it does use Alvank spelling. I go by references not by original research like above. And "Maybe Minorsky should have gone to a better publisher.", says who?... Thanks. Atabek (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Atabek, you were banned from editing the Shusha pogrom page for a month after, to quote the administrators words, "failing to actually read either their own edits or Meowy's talk page comments". That is what I was recalling when I warned against mindlessly doing reverts. If you cannot understand the limitations of printed typesetting, and the limitations of using fonts in Wikipedia that many users may not have installed, then leave this issue alone. In the book I cited, Minorsky spells Alvank using an "l" with a dot under it, to indicate it is pronounced "gh", it is not possible to reproduce this character in Wikipedia. Many users' computers will not display the crossed out "l" (ł), so "gh" is the best and most appropriate alternative. Meowy 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, your revert warring on a number of articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, which comes along with habitual single-sided POV pushing along nationalist lines, has long been a fact in Wikipedia. And I shall also remind you that you were placed on a parole due to some of those disruptions along with other contributors. So perhaps, it's time to WP:AGF and start using a more WP:CIVIL language than words like "mindless" against a contributor, even if you oppose his/her views. Your personal grievances and overzealous assumptions of bad faith above have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this page or your edit. "Best and most appropriate alternative" would be leaving "l" (in fact as written in Minorsky) and adding a little footnote on the spelling of the letter, rather than frivolously renaming the word, essentially establishing grounds for original research of other editors, claiming Albania originated from some Armenian word "aghu". Atabek (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not original research but a quote coming from primary sources - the works of Movses Khorenatsi and Movses Kaghankatvatsi. You can make assumptions about the phonetics from Russian translations as well as Armenian-language originals. And this is re-confirmed by secondary sources included in the text (like Hewsen). Remember that Movses Kaghankatvatsi borrowed the passage about Arran and the origin of name Aghvank from Movses Khorenatsi's "History of Armenia," text of which is available on the Internet. Erkusukes (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes, Erkusukes is one of the sock accounts, possibly of Verjakette. The IP 149.68.31.146 is a sock as well. Enough said. Grandmaster (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly my prior request for CU on this was almost inconclusive despite the obvious cases of sockpuppetry and vandalism involved. Anyways, in light of finding Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes, all POV/OR edits by Erkusukes=Merjanov are to be undone. Per this comment, all edits by sock accounts are deemed vandalism, I will preserve all other edits made after Erkusukes vandalizing on this page. Atabek (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted copyright violations and the Azeri term. Please provide any historic materials which shows that there was such an Azeri term. And I'm kindly reminding you about the naming conventions in geographic and historic works. VartanM (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * VartanM, the comment above is not sufficient to remove a body of sourced material, why don't you provide references disputing the facts listed in the quotes you removed? Atabek (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Copypasted material from azer.com doesn't deserve an explanation. As for the name I'm still waiting for you to provide the references I asked for. VartanM (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the full list of Persian provinces, it is redundant, has no direct relation to this article and takes too much space, a reference to the respective source is sufficient. Grandmaster (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point to a passage where Movses K. refers to "Udi script" Ironback (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) This is crude POV. Ironback (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * New user comes and restores all edits of Erkusukes/Jalaleddin/Rovoam. Very fishy. Please discuss first before restoring edits of banned user. I'm waiting for the results of investigation. Grandmaster (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point to a passage where Movses K. refers to "Udi script" Ironback —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironback, there is a need to first discuss the references or your restorations of banned User:Erkusukes edits. Your latest edits removed large portion of references and restored original research earlier inserted by a banned sock. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagine that a user said "Earth is round" and then she gets banned. Does it mean that everyone else should say after that "Earth is flat?" Stop it. You have no idea what you are sayng. Discuss the substance. Ironback (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that Ironback is a confirmed sock, so I have rolled back the last edit. I have replied to Ironback's message on the users talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Map
The old map wasn't correct. I uploaded new one that has been made from here.  Gülməmməd Talk 05:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

cleanup-spam
I put the cleanup-spam tag because it looked like the article had been defaced. The background was black and the text was replaced by some message with a warning agains tomorrow. I am not sure how it was done. After putting the tag the article looks normal again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsle (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks Ok to me. Grandmaster (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I removed the cleanup tag again. I am not sure what happened, but now it has gone. Nielsle —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian people
The quote for this line:

Caucasian Albanians were one of the Ibero-Caucasian peoples...

Encyclopedia Iranica:

Hence Markwart, Eranshahr, p. 117, was doubtless correct when he spoke of Albania/Arran as being pre-eminently a non-Indo-European land; the Albanian tongue must have belonged to the Eastern Caucasian linguistic family, as is indicated by the recently-discovered table of the 52 characters of the Albanian alphabet, in which a few inscriptions have also been found by Soviet archeologists (see V. Minorsky, A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries, Cambridge, 1958, pp. 11-12; the present Udi language, surviving vestigially in Shakki, is considered to be a remnant of it). Grandmaster (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added reference from Armenian source confirming that Albanians were Ibero-Caucasian speakers, replacing the fact tag. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added Iranica too. Grandmaster (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arran
Is there a source which says, that Arran was the ancestor of the Albanians? And that he was the king of Albania? --Vacio (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, please do not remove the reference to Hewsen, he says that Sisak and Hayk were not real persons:


 * And second, Moses of Kalankatuyk writes:


 * So he says that Aran was the ruler of Albania, from whom many Albanian tribes descended. Of course, it is just a legend, because all those tribes have no relation to Armenians, they are Caucasian people, and if Aran was Armenian, those tribes could have never descended from him. But the legend should not be taken seriously, this person never existed. --Grandmaster (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules require: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. You quoted Kaghankatvatsi out of its context. If only you should read/quote what he mentioned above, you'd see how ridiculous you OR is. Kaghankatvatsi says, the Armenian king appointed Arran as governor of the Caucasian tribes. How he could be the ancestor of Albanians, when they already existed and Arran was their governor? Besides, Utik, Tsawdek (Artsakh) and Gardman were regions of Armenia, from 189BC till 387AD. And Kaghankatvatsi and Khorenatsi say that the principalities (княжеств) of this regions originate from Arran, nothing said about any Albanian tribe.


 * Further, I think you were the first one who removed sourced info,I only restored it.--Vacio (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You see, you make your own interpretations again. Movses never mentions any date for Aran's appointment, so how do you know when exactly it took place? Also, Movses says that he was the ancestor of the Albanian tribes, and the country of Arran (Albania in Persian) was named after him. So he was an eponym, and the ancestor of a number of Albanian tribes, according to the legend. None of those tribes had any relation to Armenians, so Aran could not be Armenian himself, as his descendant belong to a completely different language group. And he did not exist in real life too. Hewsen says that his supposed ancestor Sisak was not a real person. You keep changing it to "it is uncertain if they were real or imaginary". But no one says that Sisak was a real person. We only have a source that says that Sisak was a legend. Do you have any reliable third party source that claims otherwise? --Grandmaster (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't make statememnts which the sources don't say. Hewsen don't says Sisak was not a real person, but: Sisak... can only be another eponym, and a late one at that. Sisak is said to have been the ancestor of the princes of Siwnik'. The statement that "it is uncertain if they were real or imaginary" had a source, so pleas don't remove it.


 * And also about the word "tribes". The Russian translation you quoted, marked this word with [***], that means the translator is not sure of the translation os this word. The original text has "զազգս", which in Old Armenian meaned "Family", "dynasty" (e.g. Kaghankatvatsi used "ազգն Բագրատունեաց" = the Bagratuni dynasty). It should be good to see the translation of Dowsett. --Vacio (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vacio, take a look at this Armenian source: As you see the Armenian source here confirms that unlike you claim Albanians were a distinct tribe and that they descended from Aran. Please, discuss and come up to agreement prior to further reverts to keep up the productivity. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Movses Khorenatsi, the plain of Caucasian Albania and the adjacent mountainous region, from the River Araks to the banks of the Kura, was inhabited by a famous race, the tribe of Sisak, one of whose descendants, a man named Aran, "a man outstanding in every aspect of wisdom and sagacity," was appointed military governor by Vagharshak, king of Armenia. The people were called Aghvank (Albanians) after him: because of his gentle way of life he was known as Aghbu (Armenian for sweet, soft, tender). From his offspring descended the families of Uti, Gardman, and Gargar.... Compared to the Armenians and Georgians, both of whom had established kingdoms centuries before the time of Christ, the Caucasian Albanians took a long time to organize themselves into a kingdom.


 * No, I don’t see. I think, the only thing one can conclude from that quotation, is that Arran, called the Aghu, was the eponym of Albania(ns), but I can't see that he was their ancestor. And again: Utik, Tsawdek and Gardman, were regions of Armenia, and Gargark, according to R. Hewsen, was a tribe in eastern Armenia (see this map). We need a reliable source which would emphatically state that Arran was the ancestor of Albanians. Such one, as the quote of R. Hewsen above, where there is clearly said Sisak is said to have been the ancestor of the princes of Siwnik.


 * Kaghnakatvatsi don’t used the word “ancestor” (nahapet in Armenian) to describe this legendary person. And we are not allowed to make our interpretations. I think, some statements of Kaghankatvatsi make this assertion even quite improbable. First, as I said, Arran was appointed governor of Caucasian Albanians, thus they already existed. Second, according to Kaghankatvatsi's genealogy, Albanian and Armenians were not related (See book 1, chapter 2: Albanians were more closely related to the Cyprots), while Arran is said to be a descendant of old mythical kings of Armenia, including Hayk the ancestor of Armenians (1.15). Third, you say the tribe of Sisak lived in Albania, but Movses Khorenatsi sais: And in the eastern edges, along the boundaries of Armenian speech, he [the king of Armenia] established two regents... from the Royal houses of Sisakean and Kadmean (2.8).
 * I will remove the word ancestor until we will find an affirmative source. --Vacio (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Movses says that Aran was ancestor of Albanian tribes, and so say even Armenian sources. And Aran was not an Armenian, since he was not a descendant of Hayk and Sisak, as those persons were not real. Please stop your original research. If you believe that those people were real, cite a reliable source that says so. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Aran was not appointed the governor of Albanians, the legend says he was appointed the governor of their lands. And it further says that Albanian tribes descended from him. So clearly Aran was not an Armenian, as he could not be a descendant of non-existent people, and he himself must be the same legend, as Hayk and Sisak. And I say nothing about the location of the "tribe of Sisak", and Gugark is not the same as Gargar. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a citation for the following line: However, it is uncertain whether Aran and Sisak were real or imaginary persons. H.Kramers. used as citation, never said that this was uncertain. In fact, he says quite the opposite, that Sisak is believed to be an imaginary person.

So please site a source for the claim that it is uncertain whether Sisak was real or not. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I once have read 7 provinces of Sasanids were ruled by rulers who had the title of Shah. Shahanshah was then the biggest king and empror. Regular provinces had Shahrdar. And yet we hear about Marzban. There is some ambiguity here one opinion is that at certain period of times other titles and positions existed. The other is that marzban was there to check and balance the power of traditional king. Something else was also Padgostban or Padusban, fardusban. these were generals and governors who each controled a quarter of the empire. This is thought also to be the case in a time period and not permanently. We know more about this part of empire than other parts, so there might have been herditary kings in other parts too. The main thing is that in Albania, Armenia and Iberia the Parthian nobility could maintain their power in the local politics into the Sasanian era. The main thing is simple: Caucasian Albania, Armenia and Iberia were all ruled by the Sasanid empire. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gobustan Rome.jpg
The image Image:Gobustan Rome.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1956 Soviet map
Parishan you discussed this map on Arstakh with MB, here and here, so you were aware of MB's stance. For more info see. I assumed good faith believing that only the date had to be clarified when I noticed it's that same Soviet map. Ulubabyan's map was not agreed upon because of allegations that its creation was driven by "political agenda", well the same thing goes for this one.--   Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you show me any criticism of this source by any third party one? --Grandmaster (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eupator, I do not see any similarities between this discussion and the one you are drawing upon. If the 1956 map had been published by a politically active nationalist Azerbaijani scholar criticised by a third-party source for his bias that intend to reflect an ethnocentric myth, your analogy would have made sense. Parishan (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The map rests on historical foundation at all. The Caucasian Albanian state was formed sometime in the second or first centuries. The regions of Artsakh and Utik were already a part of the former Orontid Dynasty (i.e., part of Armenia) when Artashes I assummed the reins of the kingdom in 190 BC, and began to conquer the territories held by the Iberians or Medians. No where is it mentioned, especially in historical sources like Strabo, that Artsakh and Utik were also conquered by Artashes (thus negating the Columbia Encyclopedia source cited in this article). I found a dozen or so good maps for you guys to choose from on the Artsakh talk page.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw those maps, all from before the 20th century, like the one added by VartanM. You know, a lot of progress has been made in research of the history of Albania during the last 100 years. If Armenia conquered the region on the right bank of Kura in the 2nd century B.C., then it belonged to someone else before, so it is quite possible that it belonged to Albania. Albanian kingdom emerged in the 2nd century B.C. Strabo says that Artashes conquered Siwnik and Caspiane, and obviously the area between those 2 regions was conquered at that time too. See Hewsen for details. You guys have no problems using maps from unreliable sources like Ulubabyan or Andersen, but protest the use of maps from published third party sources. I personally think that any maps used in the articles about the history of the region should come from sources that both sides agree with. However, you guys just add the maps that you like and delete those that you don't like, as if the opinion of other people does not matter. Grandmaster (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Which historical source says Artashes I conquered those regions? Strabo says he took lands from the Iberians or Medians but doesn't mention Artsakh or Utik. Your "quite possible" is doubtful because you leave out the possiblity that those lands were already a part of the Armenian kingdom when Artashes rose to the throne. Hewsen says that the kingdom of Caucasian Albania was formed sometime before the first, not second, century, so that negates your notion that it was conquered from the "kingdom." You tore leg and limb on the Artsakh article to remove and all mention of Ulubabyan but when confronted about a very misleading map, you defend it and accuse us of the very things you and your friends are guility of. No one is saying you cannot base your maps off the ones I mentioned and create them yourselves either. Find a map from Hewsen's book since this one cannot in any way be taken seriously by any (respected) scholar.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're getting somewhere now albeit slowly. Grandmaster, we don't really have any historical sources that say those territores were conquered by Artashes. We know he enlarged the kingdom but since Strabo or anyone else do not cite Utik or Artsakh one can only assume that they were already part of the pre-Artashesian Orontid realm. I mean every other territory is mentioned, including Caspiane and other terriotires to the South and East but not Utik or Artsakh. I'll support a map based on Hewsen's work. Can't get more up to date then that right?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Strabo does not mention Syunik. From the North and East he lists: Caspiane, Phaunitis, Basoropeda taken from the Medes. Chorsene and Gogarene taken from Iberians. None of these is identified with Syunik. Lets not forget what he mentions about the language spoken in those provinces btw, but that's another matter.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided a very extensive quote from Hewsen at talk of another article. Reposting here:

And another quote from an authoritative international scholar:

Grandmaster (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok so Hewsen equates Phaunitis with Syunik, but he doesn't seem to base that on any facts and that's just a wild guess of his judging from the wording. I'll see if there are any other theories on Phaunitis. One thing Hewsen doesn't do is call any of these territories Albanian though.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You see the quote of Hewsen above is enough to refuse that map straightaway: the right bank of Kura was not part of Albania in 2nd c. BC (These lands, we are told, were taken from the Medes). Minorsky is quite hazy about, he is not directly saying that Artsakh & Utik were part of Albania as a state, it seems he rather believed that they were inhabited by Albanians. So it cant be a ground to "legalize" the map in quesation. So I agree with Eupator here. This map is contrary to the generally accepted view on the topic, including the statements of R. Hewsen, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Pompey, Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, Agathangelos, Pavstos Buzand, who all state that the regions between the Arax and the Kur which were Armenian territory until 387. Moreover, the map shows even some flaws when you compere it with the original map, e.g. the boundary of Tigranes' Empire is omitted, "Albania" is written on both banks of Kur, instead of only on the left-bank, etc. We have other good maps of Caucasian Albania, why don't use them? in particular this one, or, if you need a more detailed one, this.--Vacio (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We have established that these lands were taken by Artashes from Media. There is no talk of any Albania so the Soviet map is dead wrong. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 2 versions. According to Minorsky, the lands were taken not from Medes, but from Albania. And Andersen is an amateur and an unscholarly source, you cannot replace a scholarly source with something that has never been published by any reliable third party publisher. See the rules. Grandmaster (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Than essentially disqualifies Minorsky from being used a source anywhere on this subject, that is unless you're not quoting him out of context. On what primary source does Minorsky base that claim upon? Hewsen and other obviously refer to Strabo.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacio, the map by Andrew Andersen is unscholarly comparing to what was there before, as Andrew Andersen does not represent any scholarly authority. Moreover, this map has more to do with Georgia than with the region as a whole or with Caucasian Albania in particular. As a matter of fact, can you provide us with reference as to which source does this map come from. Atabəy (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eupator, enough of edit warring and WP:OWN attitude. Please, provide the source for the map. Atabəy (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even a day has passed since you got sanctioned for ignoring ongoing discussions etc. and already you're stirring more trouble. You Atabek, reverted, without having written a single line regarding this current dispute prior to doing so. I'm actively engaged in discussing the emrits of both maps with Grandmaster. So who is edit warring? It was proved that the Soviet map is wrong. Nobody has provided any argument directed against the Andersen map. The matter is closed unless you have an argument as to why the Andersen map is inaccurate.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, again..., you don't WP:OWN the article and I provided my rationale before removing the map, scroll above. The concern is that User:Vacio used the map by "Andrew Andersen PhD" actually to replace another map already there, without proper rationale for removal. As far as "Andrew Andersen PhD" maps go, they came from blog/personal website of a self-proclaimed researcher and obviously violate WP:VERIFIABILITY.Atabəy (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you blindly cite another Wiki policy one more i'm going start ignoring you altogether. Once again, not you or anyone else has provided a single argument against the map itself or what's inaccurate about it. I'm going to assume that you find nothing inaccurate in it then. Vacio's rationale for removing the NEWLY ADDED Soviet map was that it was WRONG, and it was displayed why it was wrong a number of times. Nobody has shown any concern about Andersen's work besides you, Grandmaster or Parishan yet his maps are used all over the place. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, it's your right to start ignoring whatever you like. Your attitude, however, is neither WP:AGF nor relevant on this talk page, and regarding WP:VERIFIABILITY, please check the section "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable'.". In this light, I propose that either you or Vacio explain how self-invented Andersen map of Georgia(not even Albania or Armenia!) does not violate this policy. Atabəy (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, if you build a consensus against the inclusion of Andersen's work in Wikipedia altogether via the report you just filed than we can safely remove the map from this article and elsewhere. Of course, by no means will that lead to the inclusion of the incorrect Soviet map.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind providing some arguments as to how Soviet maps are deemed invalid? Atabəy (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever saying that Soviet maps are invalid. --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Atabəy, you say I replaced the Transcaucasia_2nd_BC.jpg map without proper rationale for removal? Did you actually read what I said above? There is not a single historical source which says that the right bank of Kur was part of Albania in 2nd c. BC. Ancient Greek and Medieval Armenian sources, all of them, say that it was an Armenian territory until 387AD. And note I am not interested were does that map come from, it conflicts with a primary historical fact. The map of Andersen, on the other hand, shows that the right bank of Kur was part of Armenia from 189BC till 387AD, after which it passed over to the Kingdom of Albania - which this is historically right (and again it doesnt matter where this map comes from). But I said if you dont like the latter you can use an other one, which showes Albania very clearly and in detail, with the drawback that it doesn't show Artsakh & Utik as part of it after 387. In any case, the last two are historically right, thus they are preferable to the first one. --Vacio (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Vacio, there is in fact a map from Vladimir Bulat's Ethnopolitical Atlas of Eurasia in the Antique and Medieval Periods published on the Gumilev Studies website where Utik and Artsakh are shown as part of Albania in the second century BC. Parishan (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The maps says 300 BC! It contradicts absolutely everything that is known about Caucasian Albania by primary sources or modern research.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Parishan (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article. The kingdom was founded in the 2nd century BC. In 300 BC, the territory of Caucasian Albania was part of Media.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 19:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the dozens of maps provided earlier along with the quote which Grandmaster didn't include when he quoted a paragraph from Minrosky when discussing with Marshall, differentiating where Albanians lived and where Albania was. I have no difficuly in finding a dozen or so maps placing Albania elsewhere, while it took you so much time to find another map supporting the incorrect Soviet '56. This is cherry picking at its worst! The point is not about finding one or two obviously wrong mapd, but what the majority of primary, secondary and tertiary sources and maps present as Albania for that period. At best Artsakh was taken from the Medes (if Phaunitis=Syunik), but going further and claiming it was taken from Albania is dubious and fringeworthy.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All the maps that you presented were from before the 20th century. They are way too old to be considered reliable, the knowledge about Albania significantly advanced in the last 100 years. Grandmaster (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those maps came from reliable western sources, not some obscure Soviet basement. Your argument about the dates strikes me as fallacious, while research on as to who the Caucasian Albanians were has greatly advanced not much has changed about the knowledge regarding borders sinceno new primary sources on contemporary geography were discovered. Since Hewsen seems to be one of your favorite sources, why not use a map derived from his work?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, if it could illustrate the border changes in the region. I also found a good map in Cambridge History of Iran. It shows the territorial changes at various times, which is what we need. But we also need a map for the period before the 2nd century B.C. Basically we need a map (or maps) to illustrate how the region was acquired by Armenia, and then lost to Albania. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically it was never lost to Albania, it was lost in the fourth century to Sassanid Persia who readministered the territory into an Albanian marzpanate which was merely a political border.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a POV of Armenian scholars. Third party sources don't think so. Albania was a sovereign kingdom, it was an ally and vassal of Sasanids, that's why it was rewarded with this territories that had Albanian population. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairy tales. You cannot back that up with even one credible source.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the quote from Minorsky just above? He says: "provinces of Uti and Artsakh (lying south of the Kur) fall again to the lot of the Albanian ruler". Where do you see any mention of Persian marzpanate? So far you cited no sources, but say that I'm telling fairy tales. --Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Marie-Louise Chaumont's article in Iranica: "The King of Albania was one of the chief vassals of the King of Kings, but exercised only a semblance of authority and was accountable to the marzban who held the real civil, religious and military power."--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the king of Albania was the vassal of the Persian king, but Albania was still a kingdom with its own rulers. It was not a province, like you claim:

Grandmaster (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If Albania had a marzban (based in Partav) it was a marzbanate. The kings had a symbolic role. This last source is clearly mediocre, it's referring to the rebellion of 450 I assume since there wasn't one before that but many after. Armenian and Georgian kingdoms? There was no Armenian Kingdom, it was already a marzbanate because the royalty was abolished two decades prior to the rebellion in 428. Albania and Georgia had the exact same status of a marzbanate but their royalty was allowed to remain since they never posed a threat unlike the Armenian Arsacids. Another things that displays the insignificance of the Albanian royalty or the Georgian one for that matter during Sassanid rule is that at this rebellion the combined Armenian, Iberian and Albanian forces were not led by an Albanian or Iberian king but by a Mamikonian!--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The territories dependent on Persia had different status. Some were ruled by the relatives of the king, as Armenia, and others had their own kings, but were vassals to the king of kings (Persian shah). And there were territories, called shahr - province. Albania belonged to the category of kingdoms, i.e. it was a vassal state with its own kings, subordinate to the kings of Persia, but it was not a province, even though it was listed among the lands that the Persian king possessed. See this:


 * Grandmaster (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The same source says something different about the Persian governors. It says that they could have been deputies to local kings, but that is not certain:


 * Grandmaster (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, neither map should be restored until a consensus is reached. Both sides seem to be claiming that one map is correct/neutral, while the other seems to make the same argument for their map. I say we don't include either until we find one that everyone likes, if that ever happens. Khoikhoi 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Alphabet
The text "However, this claim is not verified by non-Armenian sources, and—as with a similar claim that Mesrob invented Georgian—this is considered doubtful." appeared recently, with a reference as Daniels & Bright, The World's Writing Systems, 1996: p356-367. The wording has the clear implication that the claim is a lie because it is an "Armenian source", this is weasel. I have rewritten it. Given that same wording is used in the cited book I also question the veracity of the whole text: I can't see a serious academic using wording like "not verified by non-Armenian sources" when referring to a document and an event so distant and from such a remote region (where to find even one source would be considered a matter of lucky survival). The book has multiple authors, was that part perhaps written by some Azeri pseudo-academic touting their current Caucasian-Albania propaganda? Someone with a US account with Amazon should be able to read the book online and check, and see if there is a "considered doubtful" claim in the book and if so, why it is said to be doubtful. At the least, the claim seems a marginal opinion. Meowy 21:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This assertion represents a false claim that ostensibly the academic literature on Caucasian Albania has an established opinion about a doubt that Mesrob invented Georgian or Albanian alphabets. Such established opinions do not exist. Please remove the false claim. Capasitor (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The book indeed says what is claimed. The first quote comes from the chapter about Armenian alphabet, written by Avedis K. Sanjian:


 * The second quote comes from the article about Georgian alphabet:


 * So Azerbaijani scholars have nothing to do with this, the info comes from sources, not related to Azerbaijan in any way. Grandmaster (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, the book actually does not use the phrase "considered doubtful" and its content does not say that the claim is said to be doubtful, only that it is unconfirmed. Meowy 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is a strangely ignorant author who considers a Georgian writer from 1990, the heyday of of Gamsakhurdia's "Georgia for the Georgians", to be neutral, but a Christian writer from the 5th century to be a nationalistic "Armenian source". Meowy  01:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gamkrelidze is the one to whom Armenians refer to prove that they always lived in Asia Minor. Remember controversial Gamkrelidze - Ivanov theory? If anything, he is very pro-Armenian and is highly regarded in Armenia. Plus, he is quite a respected expert on the subject, even if some of his theories have no broad support in the scholarly community. Grandmaster (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being critical of Gamkrelidze, I was being critical of the author of that chapter in The World's Writing Systems who, for no sensible reason, seems to think that Koriun is an "Armenian source" and becasue of that his assertion that Mashots devised the Albanian and Georgian alphabets is suspect, yet the same author doesn't think the same of Gamkrelidze, who was writing in a far more nationalistic era. Meowy 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the word claim is right here. "Claim" is when a historian says something without enough evidences. Koriun was not a historian, but a disciple of Mesrop Mashtots, therefore his testimony could not be a claim. Then no other sources of that time speak about the Albanian alphabet, how they could confirm the Armenian "claim"? It is known that Georgian historians fiercely deny that the Georgian alphabet was made by Mashtots. But I don't know any historian who should deny that the Albanian one was made by him.


 * V. Minorsky e.g.: "введение албанского алфавита было делом армян." (=the input of the Albanian alphabet was the work of the Armenians). In this case we have only one source which does not want to believe the testimony of the primary sources (not only Koriun, but also numerous Armenian medieval historiographers, incl Kaghankatvatsi), without any argumentation. I don't think this pick must get place in this article. --Vacio (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there more than one primary source? Or are they all just repeating what Koriun wrote? However, Koriun was a contemporary of the events. Nobody at that time could have claimed Mesrop Mashots had devised the alphabet if the claim was false because there would have been examples of earlier uses of the alphabet around to easily disprove that false claim. Meowy 16:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That is what Minorski says in his History of Shirvan and Derbend:

"Большое значение в жизни рассматриваемой территории имели армяне, которые после 190г. до н. э. объединили землю Сюник (носящую также имя Сисакан) (См. Marquart, Eransahr, стр. 120 — 2; Хеннинг (см. Henning, BSOAS, 1952, XIV-3, стр. 512) одобряет данное Лагардом объяснение термина Сисакан как “Си из (племени) Сака”, однако вопрос остается неясным) и другие районы нагорья около озера Севан и оказали значительное влияние на судьбы округов, лежащих между Курой и Араксом и даже на север от Куры (в Шакки). После 387г. н. э. эти земли были утрачены Арменией, но, как мы уже видели, [36] обращение албанцев в христианство и введение албанского алфавита было делом армян. Армянские поселенцы и культурные элементы способствовали дальнейшему поглощению албанской народности. Албанская и армянская знать свободно смешивалась путем браков, в результате которых появился смешанный класс албано-армянской аристократии."

Here is the link: http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus13/Sirvan_Derbend/pred.phtml?id=1892

Please present a more balanced and referenced account on the role of Armenians in the development of C.Albanian alphabet. Capasitor (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But this section is balanced. It attributes the claims of Armenian invention to the primary sources that make them, and also has just one line, that the claim is not confirmed by non-Armenian sources, which is true. Quite in line with the rules. Just the opinions of sources and no personal interpretations. The article does not say that the Armenians did not invent the alphabet, in fact, it makes no claims at all. But it is true that we know of the fact only from Armenian sources, Georgian or Persian sources say nothing about that. Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't balanced as long as it uses a phrase like "non-Armenian sources". If the author that used the phrase had given an argument about why Korium should be considered to be an "Armenian source", and why that should lead to the claim being doubtful then it would be balanced. For example, he could have given examples of Korium's writings having distorting reality to over-emphasise Armenian influences, or he could have argued that other Armenain writers of that same period had distorted reality to over-emphasise Armenian influences, with the implication that it is possible Korium was also doing it. However, the author does none of that. If Korium is the only source making the claim, then maybe the text could be rewritten to say "not confirmed by other sources" rather than " not confirmed by non-Armenian sources". Meowy  21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But that's what the source says, and that's what it means. We only know about it because Koriun says so, and some other Armenian sources repeat that. We have no sources in other languages to confirm that. I think it is true, and not distortion of facts. If you know about any primary source in any other language supporting this claim, please quote it. Grandmaster (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a source uses a particular phrase, it doesn't mean that we are required to also use it here - especially in the context of it being an unscholarly phrase that has been used by those writers without any accompanying argument to support its use. Meowy 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Hewsen
I see a contradiction between this excerpt from the current version of the article:

And what R. Hewsen himself says in the metioned work:

It seems Hewsen is not speaking about the Albanians here but the people that to him would have lived in Artsakh and Utik in antiquity, before they became Armenian. This lands, he says were not part of Albania before 387. Note also what Strabo says about the Albanians: They live between the Iberians and the Caspian Sea. Could anyone give an explanation on this excerpt? --Vacio (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC) Vacio was forget to sign earlier.

The entire article on Caucasian Albania is of very poor quality, and should be rewritten because it does not differentiate C.Albania prior to the addition of Armenian lands of Artsakh and Utik, and after it happened in 387 AD. At that time Armenians took over and assimilated the non-Armenian part of the country east of Artsakh. That is why C. Albanian ethnic culture, if it ever existed, has never been found (with the exception of a couple of manuscripts of questionable origin). These "manuscripts" are most likely Georgian fabrications of the Stalinist era. Capasitor (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very simple. As Hewsen says in the same article, originally Albanian were the name of one of 26 tribes, which lived to the north of Kura. This tribe initiated unification of all tribes into a single state, and all 26 people were later called Albanians after them.


 * The right bank of Kura was conquered by Armenia in the 2nd century B.C, but before that it had no Armenian population. The ethnic Albanian culture did exist, and it was found in manuscripts and other writing, there's a picture of one of the stones with Albanian writings in this article. Also, there are Udi people, the only remnant of Albanians. They live in Azerbaijan to this day. Grandmaster (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

a) "The right bank of Kura was conquered by Armenia in the 2nd century B.C, but before that it had no Armenian population." - how is it known? what are the sources on that? It is nothing more than a hypothesis and should be clearly marked as such. Armenians might have lived there before. Movses Khorenatsi writes that the River Kura was "boundary of Armenian speech" (Book II). b) "The ethnic Albanian culture did exist, and it was found in manuscripts and other writing, there's a picture of one of the stones with Albanian writings in this article." - evidence that this culture ever existed is very flimsy and highly questionable. There was one stone, or two, with some strange inscriptions. There is a piece of two of some strange manuscript. That is it. Not enough to make a bold statement. The only source on the history of the Kingdom of Aghvank comes from an Armenian author, written in Armenian. No? Where are the books, manuscripts, and temples produced by "Albanians"? The neighboring Armenians, Georgians and Persians have all that. But "Albanians" do not. c) "Also, there are Udi people, the only remnant of Albanians. They live in Azerbaijan to this day." - who said Udis have anything to do with Caucasian Albania? It is a hypothesis, and a not a convincing one. It comes from the similarity of the name "Udi" with one of the tribes supposedly living in C. Abania at a time called "uti." So what? Modern Macedonians from FYROM and ancient the Macedonians of Greek extraction are two different things. "Utis" might have been a name for Armenians living in Armenian province of Utik in the same way ancient Macedonians were a Greek people. In the same way Imeretians are not a separate ethnic group but a group of Georgians living in Imereti. In the same way "Albanians" after 387 AD were possibly Armenians living in Artsakh and Utik that were added to Aghvank (Albania). The article should refer to these nuances and obscurities. Capasitor (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article entirely omits a crucial period in the history of C.Albania, between 387 AD and Arab conquest in the seventh century. Three quarters of Movses Kalankatuatsi's book is dedicated to that period. Capasitor (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a general consensus that Armenians came to the region after Artashes conquered the right bank of Araks. See Hewsen, Minorsky and others. And the fact that Albanian culture did exist is very well known. I can cite millions of sources. There are Albanian temples in Azerbaijan, and as I said stones and manuscripts with Albanian writings were found. Utis were not Armenian, again, there's a general consensus to consider them to be the only direct descendants of Albanians. If you need sources about that, let me know, I can provide dozens by the top international experts on the subject. You are disputing the things that are a general knowledge. I think you need to read more sources on C.Albania before making claims that Albanian culture did not exist and that Utis were Armenian. Grandmaster (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, let's discuss in this section only about the people of Albania and Artsakh-Utik in connection with the quote of R. Hewsen, or else I'm afraid we get the same muddle we got in talk:Artsakh earlier. Second, the claim on consensus is yours, Grandmaster, since we have a source which says that the Armenians have lived on the right bank of Kura since 7th c. BC, and Hewsen and Minorsky apparently mention no exact date.


 * Now the main point here: I think it is very simple indeed, in the above quoted passage (see under Talk:Caucasian_Albania), Hewsen says that the Armenian people of Artsakh and Utik were a result of a fusion between severeal native peoples and some incoming tribes conventionally called "Armens". R. Hewsen mentions the first ("Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians") as the pre-Armenian inhabitans of Artsakh and Utik, i.e. the south Kura, while the 26 tribes of Albania, he says, lived to the north of Kura. Why in this case the two are merged? Hewsen did not call the first "Albanians", did he?
 * Then, according to Hewsen, Artsakh and Utik were not part of Albania before 387, so I think the mention of the ancient people of these lands with that of Albania itself is misleading, even if some of the above mentioned peoples (Utians, Casipans) seem to have lived in other regions as well. In this passage we have only mention about the people of Albania apart of its neighbourings. --Vacio (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the map discussion above; somehow I missed that. Clearly, the article needs two extra titles: one, about the (huge) influence of Armenians on culture, demographics, and politics of C.Albanians, there are many articles about that, including one by Hewsen; two, on differentiation between C.Albania before adding Artsakh and Utik and after adding Artsakh and Utik (post-387 AD), which led to the establishment of semi-independent Kingdom of Aghvank (which was, essentially just another Armenian kingdom). Capasitor (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Question to Grandmaster: please provide examples of C.Albanian ethnic culture which would compare in scope, authenticity and uniqueness to ethnic culture of the neighboring Armenians and Georgians. My impression is that such culture never existed because of one simple reason: Armenians, whether they came to C.Albania before or after the 2nd century BC, were successful in assimilating C.Albanian tribesmen even before their baptism by the Armenian Church. Capasitor (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 Capasitor (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, do not delete the quote from Hewsen. Next time I will report this to admins. Sourced info cannot be removed from the article. South of Kura was also Albanian territory at various times, according to Minorsky Armenians conquered it from Albanians. And second, the examples of Albanian culture are well known, even illustrated with picture. Do not add OR to the quotes from Iranica, the article never says that the evidence about Albanian language spoken in the 10th century was inconclusive or whatever. Do not add your personal comments to the part about the Albanian alphabet, if you have a source to cite, do it, otherwise personal opinions are irrelevant here. If you want to add a comment like However, these references are not confirmed by medieval sources from regions bordering on what at a time was the kingdom of Caucasian Albania, cite your sources for it, otherwise it is OR. Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sourced text can and must be removed if they are incorrect or misinterpreted. R. Hewsen says south of Kura was not an Albanian territory before 387.


 * All the maps of Hewsen's above mentioned work show the Albanian tribes only on the left bank of Kura. R. Hewsen nowhere says that the ancient inhabitants of Artsakh and Utik were Albanian, if he says they were not Armenian, that doesn't mean they were Albanian. Mentioning them in this article is irrelevant and highly misleading. The right bank of Kura was attached to Albania only in 387, and only from this date it should be mentioned in this article.--Vacio (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The right bank was populated by the same tribes as the south. Even if this territory was part of Albania after 387 A.D., the original population of the region deserves a mention here. I don't see how this mention hurts this article. Plus, other scholars believe that the right bank was part of Albania before 387, and was taken by Armenians from Albania. See V.Minorsky, one of the top experts on Caucasia. So the quote is relevant and must remain in the article. Grandmaster (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Until modern times, rivers tended to be mostly political borders, not ethnic borders. Meowy 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That is why it is important to show that the tribes like utians lived on both banks of Araxes, and this was one of the main Albanian tribes. Grandmaster (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not making such specific claims - I'll leave that to those who have access to appropriate sources, but common-sense would suggest that at that period the same ethnic groups would live on opposite banks of a river of modest width, unless specific evidence is there to prove otherwise. Meowy 03:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that those few authors like Minorsky who inclusively suggest that "Albanians" controlled the western bank of Kura before 2nd century BC nonetheless agree that Armeians controlled that land for a VERY long period of time - for hundreds of years - perhaps with interruptions. For five long centuries. Enough time to assimilate there anything that can move. Capasitor (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Armenians controlled the region for a long time, but did not assimilate everyone. The population of the region to the South of Kura was mixed, when the region passed to Albania. You removed the following part:

''As a result of the expansion of Seljuks Turks into the territory of modern Azerbaijan in the eleventh century, the indigenous Albanian population was assimilated. Albanians played a significant role in the ethnogenesis of today's Azeris.''

But in fact, this is what the sources say. Those Albanians who converted to Islam, were eventually assimilated into Azerbaijani ethnicity. This is what Hewsen writes about the population of North of Kura and assimilation of Albanians and other aboriginal people of the region:

In the future, please discuss before removing large chunks of text from the article. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Qafqaz Albaniyası?
Please provide justification for using this Azerbaijani term (apparently invented in the 21st century by the likes of Buniyatov) in reference to C.Albania. We can mention that the people called "Azerbaijanis" who now occupy some lands that were previously part of C.Albania use this term today, but it cannot be mentioned alongside historical terms such as Aghvank, Ardhan, Arran, and Albania. Capasitor (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no justification - the term is just "Caucasian Albania" translated into Azeri Turkish, and this is not the Azeri-language Wikipedia. Meowy 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I had to remove it: indeed, C.Albania has nothing to do, historically and linguistically, with Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani Turks. Moreover, a mention of "Qafqaz Albaniyası" is harmful as it may create an impression that this article contains Azerbaijani political bias and and is based on forgeries of discredited nationalist scholars like Z. Buniyatov or F. Mamedova. I also doubt the Parthian equivalent as well. It is more suitable to have a Georgian name for Aghvank rather than Parthian. Anyone? Capasitor (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is located on the territory of modern day Azerbaijan, and therefore is relevant. As for Parthian, it is more than relevant, considering that Albania was ruled by Parthian Arsacid dynasty. Georgian is relevant too. Grandmaster (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does that make it relevant? For example, for the "Roman Empire" entry we do not see "Impero Romano" given as an alternative name just because the Roman Empire was partly on the territory of modern day Italy. That is because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Italian-language one. However, the inclusion of the Parthian name seems relevant. Meowy 21:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is OR i.e. your personal opinion. Modern Azerbaijan has nothing to do with C.Albania and whether or not C.Albania is located on its territory is likewise irrelevant in the context of historical terms Aghvank, Ardhan, Arran, and Albania. You may mention this on the side somewhere else, most appropriately on the bottom of the article where various names of C.Albania are mentioned. Capasitor (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also removed unrefenced POV/OR on the notion that supposedly "Albanians" played some role in the ethnogenesis of modern Azerbaijanis. This nonsense is a logical target of the works of Azerbaijiani pseudo-scholars like Buniyatov or Mamedova who tried to fabricate a claim to antiquity for modern Turkic Azerbaijanis. Capasitor (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania has as much to do with Azerbaijan as Urartu does with Armenia. So both Meowy and Capasitor may want to reconsider their position after checking out the Urartu article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Urartu article fixed. If you know of others, let me know. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There should not have been be Urartu written in Armenian. But the reason I would give is different: it is not because it is an English encyclopedia but because there are no precedents of using the word Urartu in Armenian political or social practice, and on a sustained basis i.e. historically. Artsakh can be in Armenian and perhaps in Russian (I am uncertain here though); Karabakh can be in Turkic and Persian. But Azerbaijanis learned that there was something called "C.Albania" only in the 1960s. Capasitor (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delightful, so why don't we also remove Armenian names from Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh articles, since Karabagh word has simply no meaning in Armenian.
 * Azerbaijanis are people who originated from C.Albania, simply because the people lived on the same piece of land. You cannot prove in theory that all people of Caucasian Albania just evaporated and Azerbaijanis somehow appeared on their spot, evolution of nations is a lengthy process which takes centuries. Similarly Armenians of today would hardly resemble Grabar-speaking Armenians of the times of Tigran. Atabəy (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Both the "Armenian" and the "Azeri" names seem to be valid additions for the Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh articles. They are being used to describe an entity that still exists (unlike Urartu, or Caucasian Albania, or the Roman Empire) and are names used by the populations of that entity. Of course, they are not actually "Armenian" or "Azeri" names, they are merely the same name written using the current Azeri and Armenian scripts - if there is an argument to be made for them being removed, it would be on that basis. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is OR - original research. Show me an Azerbaijani text written in the Middle Ages that used an original Azerbaijani term for "C.Albania". When the term "Aghvank" was coined by Armenians, the ancestors of modern Azerbaijanis were pastoral nomads ... in Eastern Siberia. Capasitor (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't subscribe to such racist views. According to your ridiculous theory, Armenian ancestors should then be traced back to Indians or Aryans, which were naturally not indigenous in Caucasus region either. The word Albania comes from ancient Greek writing of Strabo, there is no substantial proof that the name of the country was coined by Armenians. Please, avoid WP:OR and WP:POV. Atabəy (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's in dispute here. Genetic tests have shown that Azeris differ very little from the rest of the Caucasus population and have very little in common with the autochtonous Turkic peoples which means that they speak Azeri as a result of language/culture displacement.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Armenian names cannot be removed from Karabakh and Nagorno Karabakh because both terms have been used by Armenians historically, from the first days these terms were invented - despite their Turkic/Persian/Russian origin. That there is a genetic similarity between Azero-Turks and whoever lived on these lands before the Turkic colonization is totally irrelevant. Some Azero-Turks are presumably Armenians by blood (proven historical fact); but since they have rescinded their Armenians cultural identity, they severed ties to their Armenian ancestors and therefore cannot claim historical or cultural lineage. Ethnicity is a political and cultural phenomenon - not genetic/biological. Also, we do not know who "C.Albanians" were (and whether they existed at all, these are only HYPOTHESES) and whether or not they became ancestors of modern Armenians or Azero-Turks will forever remain a hypothesis too. You do not provide a Turkish word for Byzantine Empire ("Vizantin Empiresy" or whatever) simply because you believe that modern Turks may have Greek blood or because Constantinople is in modern Turkey. Capasitor (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the existence of numerous churches, and works of prominent historians like Dowsett, Minorsky and even Hewsen writing about it, I think it's not quite scholarly to claim that whether Caucasian Albanians existed is a hypothesis. Also, if Albanians were Armenians (they were not, as their language was Ibero-Caucasian or Nakh-Daghestani not Indo-European, so they were actually closer to Georgians and/or Lezgis, for example the name of Albanian ruler of Artsakh was Vakhtang - which isn't Armenian but Georgian name), there would be no need for Professor of Armenian Studies at Oxford to write explicitly about them. Atabəy (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeap, good point about there being no Turkish name for the Byzantine Empire.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 04:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is interesting, but not too many books about this. No need for Azerification of this article. Is there additional books or monographs specifically dedicated to this topic? Also any pictures we can add. For examples of Albanian art or architecture or maps of kingdom of albania. i know there was argument so we must not add propoganda map pretending artsakh was caucasian labania and therefore azerbaijani. this is respectable website and we must avoid such ultranationaliz terrorist-like warfare here. i think youtube is better for this type of material.Atabəybəy (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, avoid WP:TROLL. Atabəy (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked that account. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed reference table to "History of Azerbaijan." The history of what scholars call "C. Albania" has nothing to do with the culture or history of a modern Turkic nation that self-designated in the 20th century as "Azerbaijanis" or "Azeris." Additionally, there are a number of nations claiming historical or geographic affinity to C.Albania which may place similar tables on this page: Armenians, Dagestanis, Georgians, Persians (C. Albania was part of Persia) and even Mongols (territory of former C. Albania was part of the Mongol Empire states in the 13th century). In order to preclude this from happening, the table has been removed. In the future please do not vandalize history-related pages with "history of" reference tables unless there was a thorough discussion of the issue (that is exactly was happened with this nationalist POV back in the past, as testified by archives). Imagine "History of Turkey" reference table appearing on the page on Byzantium or Byzantine Empire. Thanks. Capasitor (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, there is a "History of Greece" table on the page for Byzantine Empire, in fact, there are "History of Greece" templates everywhere, such as for Minoan civilisation. The same argument could be made for their removal. And any argument against their removal could also be made for the "History of Azerbaijan" template here. Minoans have as much in common with modern Greeks as Albanians have with modern Azeris (i.e., almost none). Maybe what is needed is an ethnically neutral term, something like "History of the Caucasus", that would recognise that things are not clear-cut and the same histories and places can belong to many current ethnic groups or, in some cases, to none. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 21:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a more appropriate signposts would be "History of Hellenic civilizations." Capasitor (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored the table. Please do not remove anything without the consensus on talk. The history of Albania is part of the history of the country of Azerbaijan, Albania occupied most of the territory of modern day Azerbaijan. And the writing on stone is known for sure to be Albanian, no serious historian on this planet doubts it. So I removed the OR interpretations too. Also, it is not the only one of its kind, there are more in the museum of history in Baku. Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also find a very strange correlation in the edits of Capasitor with the edits of the banned user Erkusukes, who was very active on this page. Just check these 2 diffs: . Grandmaster (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an empty talk, a groundless POV. I am glad you have mentioned that the stone with "Albanian letters" is kept in the Baku History Museum. I assume it is on display together with the two sculls of the great "Azerbaijani" poet Nizami (one - when he was a kid, and another - when he grew up), and the wireless telegraph apparatus used for exchanging messages between the great "Azerbaijani" hero Babek to his friend Julius Cesar. You are edit-warring, totally ignoring the above discussion and replying with absurdities. "There are more [stones] in the museum of history in Baku." Oh yeah? And in your gran grandma's backyard too, right? Remove the nationalist POV table about the "history of Azerbaijan" - C.Albania has nothing to do with it. "History of Azerbaijan" began in 1918. Capasitor (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this a groundless POV? When I say that the stone contains writing in Albanian language, I cite my sources. If you have the information to the contrary, cite your sources too. As for the table, it should remain. The history of Azerbaijan does not start in 1918, anything that happened in the territory of the country is a part of its history. --Grandmaster (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources on who discovered the stone, who determined that it is in C.Albanian, how many of them exist. Thanks. Capasitor (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. See the quotes:

Great interest has been created by the stone base for a cross that was found at Mingechaur and by fragments of ceramic candlesticks that bear Albanian inscriptions.

Joseph L. Wieczynski, George N. Rhyne. The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History. Academic International Press, 1976. ISBN 0875690645, 9780875690643

Another one, more detailed:

Ten years later, in 1947, archaeological excavations in Mingechaur (Azerbaijan) under the guidance of S. Kaziev found the first remains of Albanian writing — a stone altar post with an inscription around its border that consisted of seventy letters. Subsequently, the excavations at Mingechaur from 1948 to 1952 recovered six Albanian epigraphic artifacts with brief texts (containing from five to fifty letters), including candlesticks, a tile fragment, and a vessel fragment.

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. ISBN 0226450589, 9780226450582

Grandmaster (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "stone base for a cross" is the same one used for the image at the head of the History of Azerbaijan table. A reproduction of the same stone was placed in the renovated church at Kish. It's all part of the same process of modern Azerbaijan's inventing or distorting its origins to agree with its current nationalist dogma. Because of that, the table has questionable motives behind it. But in reality it is no different from the Greek History one. Its articles are far more numerous, and deal with subjects that a wider audience would come across - so I can't see any point in tackling the problems with the Azerbaijan table until the problems with the Greek one are tackled. And I'm not going to attempt that! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 02:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That stone is sort of a symbol of Albania, which is an important part of the history of Azerbaijan. It would be good if you refrained from expressing bias against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is not inventing or distorting its origins, any civilization that existed on its territory is part of its history, whether someone likes it or not. So it is a wise decision to leave the table alone. Grandmaster (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The point that "any civilization that existed on [Azerbaijan's] territory is part of [Azerbaijan's] history" is a well-researched and potently exposed Azerbaijani nationalist doctrine. Read Kauffman and Schnirelman. And a POV. In what way are these civilizations "part of [Azerbaijan's] history"? That the "stone is sort of a symbol of Albania" is a nationalist POV. Azerbaijani state is a self-proclaimed state for Turks - tribesmen from Central Asia who came from across the Caspian to kill and pillage the indigenous peoples of the Caucasus and Asia Minor, and steal their land. That may seem too harsh, but that is what it is. Their arrival stopped the progress of much more advanced autochthonous Christian Orthodox civilizations. This is the same thing as to say "any civilization that existed on the territory of the Mongolian Empire is part of Mongolia's history." The civilization an culture of Turkic Azerbaijanis has nothing to do with "Albania" et al. Capasitor (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK - now without emotions. I may agree on "pre-history of Azerbaijan" because "History of Azerbaijan" is like there was a continuously existing country or state or a geographic area called "Azerbaijan." There was not. I also may agree on "History of lands-that-ended-up-in-modern-Azerbaijan." Neither can there be "History of Pakistan" or "History of Nigeria." C.Albania has more to do with Armenia than with "Azerbaijan." Armenians baptized them and invented for them as alphabet, as Minorski famously wrote. Either remove the table or we should post other "History of ..." tables as well to keep hings in NPOV balance. Capasitor (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This state existed in the territory of Azerbaijan, therefore it is a part of its history. Therefore the table should remain. Grandmaster (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Partav
Minorsky says it was built by Vache, but I can't find the place where he says that is generally believed. --Vacio (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Movses of Kalankatuyk, and I can cite more sources if needed. The general consensus is that the city was built in the 5th century A.D. Grandmaster (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, please provide a quote from Hewsen's atlas about Albanians under Arabic rue. Grandmaster (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, he says it was constructed by Vache II, but I don't see here a contradiction with Iranica, so I think Vache built the city, but was not the founder of it. As a matter of fact, R. Hewsen says Partav is the Armenian name of the city. The requested quote:


 * --Vacio (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Partav is a Pahlevi name and is founded by a Sassanid king long before Arab conquest. I have a good source for that, but I should find it first, before I can say more.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Partaw/Barda was founded by the Albanian king Vache at the behest of the Persian king Peroz and was initially called Perozapat. There are many sources about that, for example one of the top experts on Iran and Caucasus Vladimir Minorsky:

Grandmaster (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Map added by Grandmaster
I hope someone can do a direct comparison between it and the source that it says it has been derived from. At a glance, there are some small problems with it. Firstly, there is no title within the image, It would be surprising if the original map did not have one. Secondly, its key has minimal indication of what markings on the map show. What is "Line of 378", what is "Line of 591"? Most of us who know the subject will know what it is - it is the border between Persian controlled Armenia and Roman/Byzantine controlled Armenia. However, the omission of this description could suggest some POV altering of the original source to remove mention of the word "Armenia" and thus give an over emphasis to "Albanian Lands" in the key. Even if that is not the case, there needs to be an explanation of what those "lines" are for the uninformed readers who will compose the bulk of the map's readership. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 16:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be demonstrated that this map does not distort the message of the original map. Capasitor (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its obvious the map was altered. First it's impossible there is no note for 387 and 591 representing Armenian lands, and it makes no sense that given the different periods representing Armenian territory that the title of the map contained something to the effect that the map represented Armenia. Since the evidence is too strong that there is tempering that map should be removed until Grandmaster shows us the original. - Fedayee (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, the source is stated, including the page number. You can check it, just go to the library. No one will do that for you. Second, I'm not the creator, but I checked the map, and it is an accurate copy of the original, including the legend. The map has a title, which is not written on the map itself, and the title is "Armenia and its neighbors". The map comes from a reliable non-partisan third party source. What are your problems with it? Please explain, why Cambridge History is not a reliable source. Grandmaster (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a caption under the map, for one? The map that you have provided for this article is just a jumble of borders without any clear timeline. It's akin to drawing a map of the Byzantine Empire from 1071-1261 and dumping the borders of the Latin Kingdom, Sultunate of Rum, Byzantine Constantinople, the Trebizond Empire all into one. What is a user going to make of reading something that writes "Line of 387"? At the very least, it should write "387 Partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia" and "Line of 591" should write "Second Partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia." It's obvious that the map is accompanied by the text of the Cambridge History which makes this information clear.


 * When did Caucasian Albania's borders sink that far to the south? Shouldn't there be a note that the territories east of Lake Sevan (i.e. Artsakh and Utik) were part of the Arshakuni kingdom until the Byzantines and Persians partitioned it in 387? Neglecting to include such information is very disingenuous on you part GM. People who are familiar with the history of the region would be able to recognize why the borders were arranged like so, but to the layman, this'll only serve to confuse the reader. Redress is needed.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is unclear. At least it clearly shows that Armenian lands were under the political border of the Albanian satrapy after the partition.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree: the map is highly imperfect. It should show borders of Armenia before and after the partition of the country. Please consult R.Hewsen's "Armenia: A Historical Atlas" regarding how you can do that. Consider this map that shows Artsakh and Utik as part of Armenia, and the River Kura as border between Armenia and Albania: . Grandmaster - here we have a consensus that the map should be either altered or removed. Please follow recommendations of the majority per Wiki's rules. Thanks. Capasitor (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This map has a source, which is perfectly neutral and third party. I don't think there's anything to discuss here. I did not personally create it, but it is an accurate reproduction of the map by Cambridge history, which is a respected and reliable source. I think it is fairly presented here, that certain lands were part of Armenia, and then became a part of Albania. Ideally, it would be good to have another map of the region for the period before the conquest of the right bank by Armenians. But at the moment it should do. This map is created by experts, unlike other maps used in some articles. Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, what is even to discus here? The map is from a objective source, thus it can be perfectly applied Baku87 (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Baku, the ignorance of your comments are enough to disqualify you from further participation. Apparently the concept of representing maps accurately escapes the both of you. The argument isn't against the source per se (which is titled in the book "Armenia and its neighbors"), but how disingenuously it is presented: Albania's borders extended southwards toward Armenian lands only thanks to the partition of Greater Armenia in 387, and even then, Albania was part of the Persian marzpanate. One needs to at least read the chapter on Armenia in the Cambridge History to understand these things; instead, we have a confounding drawing of multiple "lines of" that have no context and which are only used to push POV.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Marshall, before making incivil comments about other users, it would be good if you compared the map with the original. You'll see that it is a highly accurate copy of the original. Was the map distorted? No, it was not. Was it made by experts? Yes, it was. So what's the problem? Is it because I inserted the map, and if it was inserted by someone else, no one would care? And Albania was not a marzpanate, it was an independent kingdom with its own kings. They were loyal vassals of Sasanians, who helped them to gain (or regain according to some scholars) the territories with the Albanian population on the southern bank of Kura. This all is shown on the map, it shows those region as part of 2 different states at various times, which is good and helps the reader to understand the border changes in the region. Again, the map comes from an expert publication, and as such is very useful for the topic. Grandmaster (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone thinks that the timing is not clear from the legend, I think we can make some sort of clarification of the timeline in the caption for the map. What do you think? Let's discuss that. Grandmaster (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The map was indeed distorted. First, the map was about Armenia, this article is about Caucasian Albania. Second, any mention of it being Armenia will be removed by you under the pretext that the article is about Albania. Third, everyone knows that the line does not mean anything for any reader without knowing what the map represent. Finally, you claimed that you compared the maps. Please send me a copy of the picture, I question the map. My follow-up comments will be made after the picture is sent. --VartanM (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The map is called Armenia and its neighbors, so it is not about Armenia only. As for the original, check google books, it should be there. You can also try amazon.com. Grandmaster (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have access to the original then why not place a copy of it somewhere so we can all quickly check it and the issue of the accuracy of the copy in relation to the original can be settled. There are lots of little errors in it which I don't know are a result of it being copied wrongly or are in the original map. For example, Sper is shown at some distance south of the Choruh river when actally it is on the north bank of it, shouldn't "Armida" be "Amida"?, "Mamikonid / Taraun" looks to be positioned too far to the northwest. There are lots more like that, minor things but they suggest that the accuracy and the positioning of the lettering has not been done well. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please email me, I will send you the original. I cannot attach files when emailing through the system. Grandmaster (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just upload it to Wikipedia and post the link here. It will be erased within a week, but that will be long enough for everyone here to see it. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be deleted instantly because of copyright. Grandmaster (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't be deleted instantly unless an editor actually goes out of their way to delete it. I don't think that would happen. Left on its own, which it probably would be, it would be deleted in 7 days. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 20:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, here it is: Grandmaster (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Got it. Looking at the copy beside the original, the borders all seem about the same, but there are quite a few spelling errors in the copy: Armida is indeed Amida, Ayan should be Avan, Valarshapat should be Vagharahapat (on the original it is probably a crossed out l, signifying a "gh"), and so on. But no serious differences, except, perhaps, that on the original "Siunia" extends further to the east, over into "Albanian lands and border territories". Maybe we could get the maps creator to make some changes to correct those errors and get a title added to the map and an addition to the key that explains what the "lines" are. The problem with using the map in this article is that it is too general. It shows a lot of material that is off-topic for the article and it does not specifically indicate what is "Caucasian Albania" - it shows "Albanian lands and border territories". But maybe not enough is known for any maps to be more specific, and this map is the best we can get. So, until we can get something better, I think it should remain in the article. The article does need a map. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 23:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please give me the list of all spelling errors in the map, in addition to those that you mentioned? I also found a couple. I will ask the map creator to fix all the errors. In fact, this map is made even more professionally, than the original, in terms of visual presentation. We can crop it to show only Albania, but on the other hand it might be useful for the reader to see the location of Albania in the region in relation to other states, such as Armenia, Roman empire, Persia, etc. Also, we can add additional clarifications in the caption, but we need to get consensus on that text first. I don't think it should be a problem. The good thing about this map is that it is made by experts, and no one can accuse them of any bias. Grandmaster (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Im sorry to inform you MarshallBagramyan but you are not in the position to jump to conclusions and exclude wikipedians from participation in talks, keep this in mind. Baku87 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please reread the above statements (including yours) and points raised, and then tell me that there is nothing to discuss about. Only then will I reconsider inviting you to the grown-ups' table.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool it, please, gentlemen. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tags
Vacio, I don't understand what is dubious about the quote from Hewsen. Do you have any doubts that he indeed wrote that the original population of the right bank was not Armenian? Go to library and check his book yourself. Please do not add irrelevant tags to the article, just because you do not like the information. Grandmaster (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Above I asked you the quote from Hewsen where he says that Albania in the 2d c. BC included Artsakh and Utik, as you wrote in the article. I also asked you a qoute from Hewsen where he says that Utians, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians, were all Albanian tribes. I do not discuss here whether they were Armenian or not, I want to know whether thay were Albanian.


 * I'm fair enough to remove the dubious tags when I have no doubts anymore, and I complain that you and user User:Baku87 removed them without providing me the qoutes I requested for. Since I have serious reasons to think, that the work of R. Hewsen is manipulated here. I know this work: Robert Hewsen criticises there the Armenian historian Manacakanian and the Azeri historian Bunyatov, who claimed that the right bank of Kura was homogeneously Armenian, respectively homogeneously Albanian, when it became part of Armenia in the 2nd c. BC. Hewsen says that many tribes lived on the right bank, who were not of Armenian origin, on the other hand he says that the Albanian people were a union of 26 tribes on the left bank of Kura. I can't understand how it becomes that in our article the right bank of Kura has also becomen "Albanian". If you read the works of Hewsen about Albania, you see that it is even impossible that the right bank of Kura would be part of Albania in the 2d c. BC: according to him the Albanian state and the Albanian nation emerged only in the 1st c. BC.


 * Here an other qoute, where Hewsen speaks about one of these tribes, Gargars (the ones who lived on the right bank of Kura). They were not Armenian, but that does not mean that they were Albanian. According to Hewsen they were possibly ethnic Georgian (Iberian):


 * I wander if Grandmaster read these excerpts from Hewsen's "Ethno-History" he had quoted so many times in several article and talkpages:


 * So I propose to remove the qoute of Hewsen in question, which apparently is used on the wrong place, and to write who the Albanian people were according using Hewsen on the places where he explicitly speaks about the Albanians. I can And I would like to hear also opinions of some third-party users. --Vacio (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The right bank of Kura was a part of historical Albania, and according to all sources became a part of that state in 387. The history of that territory prior to 387 is highly important to this topic, and therefore it needs to be described here. Plus, scholars such as Minorsky and Trever say that the right bank was conquered by Armenia from Albanians:


 * I see no reason to suppress very important information about the population of the right bank. On the contrary, this information should be even more expanded, as both right and left bank of Kura were parts of historical Caucasian Albania and had almost identical population. Whether Hewsen thinks that the region at the time was or was not part of Albania cannot be a reason for removal of this info, even as part of Medes or Armenia the region was still populated by the Albanian tribes, such as utis, gargareans, sodians, etc. Therefore the information about population of that region is highly important and relevant to the topic of this article. Grandmaster (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that some historians thought that the Armenians took this lands from Albanians in the 2nd BC, can not be a justification for the misquote of R. Hewsen, who thinks that Albania did not even exist in the 2nd c. BC. You can use quote Minorsky or Trever apart from Hewsen. What you are trying to do is original synthesis per WP rules. --Vacio (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not misquoting Hewsen. I only quote him. I never attribute to him a statement that the right bank was part of Albania prior to 387 A.D. I only quote his opinion about the population of the right bank of Kura. Even if we assume that everyone agrees that the right bank was not part of Albania before 387, the information still belongs here, as the region became a part of Albania later, and the reader needs to know what kind of lands were attached to Albania at that time, and who lived there. There's no synthesis here. Grandmaster (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A more precise map
Now that the authenticity of the map does not raise any questions, I suggest that someone crop the existing map to show only the portion with Caucasian Albania. It contains many additional details, so I thought the cropping might be desirable for relevance purposes. Parishan (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. We can crop it to show only the part that has a relevance to this particular article. Grand  master  10:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the map should be cropped - cropping it does not make it more precise. In fact it makes it less precise because it would encourage readers to assume that it is a map produced specifically to show Caucasian Albania, when actually it is a small-scale map designed to show the whole region. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 19:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And how exactly is 'assuming that the map is produced specifically to show Caucasian Albania' going to affect their understanding of the article? Parishan (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the map was not produced specifically to show Caucasian Albania - the marking on the map does not indicate the borders of Caucasian Albania (if such borders are actually known for certain) - it shows "Albanian lands and border territories". That limitation can be understood best in the context of seeing the whole map. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 15:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the info that native name for the country is unknown was removed by accident. It has a source, and indeed, no one knows what Albanians called their country in their own language. Grand master  09:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This article needs far more thorough copyediting for sources and statements than the one I have just provided. Some really dumb things are sourced with non-authoritative sources (e.g., Albania wasn't conquered in the 1st century as the anonymous Columbia article says), some statements aren't supported by their sources (e.g., Bosworth's article is abused), and others just don't even correspond to reality (e.g., it's not just Armenian historians who argue that Cauacasian Albania became Christian in the 4th century). I added a new map by Robert Hewsen which is necessary, given the often changing borders of Albania. It shows the borders of Albania proper, prior to the 387 partitioning of Armenia. Others are more than welcome to begin the clean up of this mess. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The map you have added says very little about Albania and virtually nothing about its borders. It was not even designed to present sufficient information on Albania, unlike the other one. Parishan (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The map is a visual aid, not a source, and it shows Albania's more traditional borders next to the Kur river. For that matter, the other map was about Armenia from the 4th to 6th centuries. And without the caption, which you senselessly deleted, it's nothing but a jumble of dotted lines that will confound and mislead the layman reader. The first map is needed for readers to understand the historical context of Albania in relation to its neighbors.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just have both maps for now - though neither are ideal they compliment each other and are probably the best available. But the Hewsen map is too small to make out a lot of its content. BTW, how do we know that he has given permission for the map to be reproduced on Wikipedia? And is it so small because that was a limitation he placed on its use? <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy  17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Through direct communication with Prof. Hewsen; the OTRS tag is pending. He placed no restriction on the resolution of his maps. I attempted to scan the current one but the book is so huge, that only the first half comes out, but at least at a high resolution. I'll try in the future and perhaps I'll be able to stitch each scanned portion using Photoshop.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit was really unnecessary: There's no need to represent the historical facts as the points of view of either Armenian or Azeri scholars, and Chorbaijian is a source of a very poor quality. We should stick to reliable international experts on the topic. Grand master  17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

State of knowledge about "Caucasian Albania
This article is about a bogus subject. It fails to distinguish two things: semi-legendary Albania of Strabo (where those 26 tribes presumably lived) and the Armenian provinces Artsakh and Utik which formed an Armenian kingdom called "Aghvank." There was a tribe of Gargareans there for whom Mashtots invented an alphabet but that is the only non-Armenian attribute of the culture of the Kingdom of Aghvank that ever existed. Arstakh and Utik were Armenian populated and Movses Kaghankatvatsi never mentioned that Aghvanians were an ethnic group; in fact he never calls himself or others "Aghvanians" but "easterners." The article should be re-rewritten in its entirety. Capasitor (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we do not rewrite articles based on someone personal beliefs. There was no Armenian kingdom called Agvank, it is just Armenian spelling of Albania. See Hewsen, Minorsky and others for more details. Grand  master  11:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All primary and most secondary sources support this "personal beliefs," including Minorsky and Hewsen.Capasitor (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how. Grand  master  07:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The alphabet was invented [for] the Udi and was used for what we now call the Old Udi language. It was called "Caucasian Albanian" before it was deciphered, and now should be called "Old Udi". -- Evertype·✆ 09:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The alphabet was not "invented (by) the Udi". "Caucasian Albanian" is the term used in almost all sources. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Invented for the Udi. And of course a particular term has been used, prior to decipherment, because it wasn't deciphered! We used to talk about "Hittite Hieroglyphs". Now we know the proper name of the script is "Anatolian Hieroglyphs", because the script is used for other languages (indeed more often for languages other than Hittite). The language the script is used for is Old Udi. There's no benefit (apart from a political POV) in calling the script something else. That's linguistic science. When we learn new things, we revise our terminology. -- Evertype·✆ 10:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Evertype, I see your point. But according to Wikipedia rules, we should use the terms used by most of reliable sources. The most popular name at the moment is "Caucasian Albanian". This may change in the future, but at the moment it is what it is. In my opinion, we should use "Caucasian Albanian", but mention any existing alternative names as well. That would be in line with the rules and general practice of Wikipedia. Grand  master  11:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Grandmaster. Of course, Wikipedia "rules" are really "guidelines", and "most popular" is not always the deciding factor, where accuracy is concerned. For instance, although "grandfather clock" is a very widely used term, the article is Longcase clock, which is technically correct. I think that Caucasian Albania is an interesting topic. It is not, however, diminished by recognizing that this script is used for the Old Udi language, not some "Caucasian Albanian" language. Linguistic knowledge deciphered the alphabet. Previously we only knew that it was found in Caucasian Albania. Now we know what it is. It's the Old Udi script. Giving it that name gives it dignity. And do not the Udi themselves deserve that dignity? -- Evertype·✆ 13:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they do deserve it. The problem is that I don't see that there's a consensus in the scholarly community to call it "Old Udi". It may take time until such consensus is formed, but at the moment this is a position of some scholars, but not the majority. As I said, this may change as time goes on. In my personal opinion, we should call it Caucasian Albanian alphabet, but we should also explain in detail that there's a growing trend in the scholarly community to refer to it as Old Udi, and explain reasons for that. Grand  master  18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sassanids
GM, happy Noruz. On the statement: "However, according to Josef Wiesehöfer Albania was designated not as a province within Persia, but as a kingdom, the relation of the rulers of which with the Persian "king of kings" is usually referred to by scholars as "vassalage". Wiesehöfer states that whether the "kingdoms" also had a shahrab as a kind of deputy of the shah cannot be ascertained.(Ref:"However Albania retained its monarchy and was designated as a kingdom, and the relationship of the local rulers with the Sasanian “king of kings” is usually referred to by scholars as “vassalage”. Josef Wiesehofer. Ancient Persia. ISBN-10: 1860646751"). Actually I looked and such a sentence is not there.  Please note: .  Unless I have the wrong page,  it states: "However, the NPi does not describe all these kings as subjects of Sassanian ruler". But it does not get specific on which king or kingdom. The next line is about local rulers and vassalage, but local rulers are not named in Albania in the inscription. Since it does not get specific, we cannot say it is about Albania or not. Finally, the Olsen source does not seem to be as reliable as Chaumont, which is an article about Albania itself and after looking at it, it uses the word "vassal", which is fine and does not contradict Chaumont. I don't mind alternative views but they should use sources that are explicit, equally reliable [Western rather than Soviet since Soviet historiography de-emphasized Sassanids and many times it does mention that all the rulers of Armenia, Albania and Georgia (wether local or King of Kings) were actually Iranian (Parthian/Persians/Achaemenids)] and the actual sentences should be existent in the book rather than connecting various words from different sentences (I am not saying GM did this but somebody had given a sentence which does not seem to exist in the book mentioned). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Note should be made that a vassal kingdom does not contradict what Chaumont states (So if other sources describe it as a vassal Kingdom it is the same thing). Because Chaumont states: "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.". In other words, sources that claim it as a vassal kingdom or Satrap do not contradict sources that mention that it was part of the Sassanid empire and actual control was through the Marzaban. This makes sense also since Marzaban means protector of the land, and Albania was a border province and walls were contructed to keep invaders away. The Sassanids would not neglect their border or leave it up to the local king to decide. See also Cambridge history of Iran were it talks about dependence and semi-independence. The only source specifically concerning the status of Albania is Chaumont and he does not contradict these. Note many of the semi-independent kingdoms were run by Sassanid princes, cousins and etc and they considered themselves as part of the empire. In other words Chaumont, Wieshofer and Cambridge history of Iran are not contradicting each other. That is the term "vassal", "kingdom" and "province" are not contradictory. Many of these regions had local kings and/or Marzabans appointed by Sassanid governors or even both. In the case of Caucasian Albania, there was a Marzaban (hence can be described as a province of the empire) and also a local king (vassalage). But it seems the sources state the Marzaban had the effective power, in other words despite its vassal status (having a local king), it was effectively under the control of Sassanids. Again note Wieshofer is not mentioning a specific province so how he defines the vassalage does not mean it pertains to Albania and it would be OR to consider his statement as contradicing Chauamont unless it does so specifically by mentioning Albania, but I did not find such a sentence as it was stated in the article. Of course not all provinces/vassal kingdoms of Sassanids had a Marzaban (protector of the border) nor did all provinces had a local king, but Albania had both, due to the fact it was on the border it had a Marzaban. So given that it had both a local king and a Marzaban, you will find statements that describe it as a vassal kingdom as well as a integral part of the empire. But thus far I have not seen a source that says the Sassanid Marzaban was a subordinate to the local King. So there is no contradiction between these sources. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Nepaheshgar,and Happy Novruz,


 * Please check these quotes from Wiesehofer, and tell me what you think.


 * From what I see, according to Josef Wiesehofer, the territories dependent on Persia had different status. Some were ruled by the relatives of the king, as Armenia, and others had their own kings, but were vassals to the king of kings (Persian shah). And there were territories, called shahr - province. Albania belonged to the category of kingdoms, i.e. it was a vassal state with its own kings, subordinate to the kings of Persia, but it was not a province, even though it was listed among the lands that the Persian king possessed. The same source says something different from Iranica about the Persian governors. It says that they could have been deputies of the shah to the local kings, but that is not certain:


 * So from my understanding of this text, Albania was a kingdom, vassal to the Persian empire. But it was not a province ruled by a Persian governor, as it had its own line of kings. Grand  master  20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope it is a joyous year and I am glad they are proposing a long vacation in Azerbaijan.  We shouldn't automatically assume Wiesehofer and Chaumont are saying different things.  On the issue, Wiesehofer, he is reffering to Paikuli inscription ( A.D. 293 ) and  Shahpur.  This was still the beginning of the Sassanid empire (A.D. 224).  But he is not specific on which provinces he is talking about, but he is specific on the time period (Paikuli).  Map 4 in his book puts Albania as part of the empire.  So we cannot necesarrily say he is contradicting Chauamont unless it is the same period.  Wieshofer with this regard also states: "that the NPi, does not describe all these kings as subjects of the Sassanid ruler".  But he does not mention Albania specifically or which kingdom.  That is why the other sentence inserted was puzzling cause I did not find it, but if such a sentence did exist, then it would be specifically mentioning Albania. Chaumont seems to be referring to later Sassanid period.  Albania was both a vassal but also a province.  It might seem weird, but the reason is that it had both a Marzuban and a vassal king.  That is it had both a king and a Marzaban in the later period.  Wisehofer is saying: "The relationship of the local rulers with the `king of kings' is usually referred to by scholars as `vassalage'. ".  But he is specific towards the Paikuli inscription and uses the quantifier "usually", but he does not specifically point to Albania.  So we cannot connect to it Albania unless the "usually" and "does not describe all these kings" (so some of them) is mentioned specifically about Albania.  When states: "Whether the 'kingdoms' also had a shahrab as a kind of deputy of the shah cannot be ascertained.", but he is not specific towards which of the kingdoms (all some few?).  Chaumont is specific.  Caucasian Albania for sure had a Marzuban (this is not in doubt).  Now given that the land had a Marzuban (at least in the later period) installed by the Sassanid, then there is three possibilities.  A) The Marzaban was a subordinate of the vassal King.  B) The vassal king was a subordinate of the Marzaban.  C) they shared power.  B,C is unlikely. I agree with what you say: "it had its own line of kings", hence it was a kingdom and a vassal, but you are missing that it also had a Marzaban.  So while having a vassal King, Caucasian Albania would fall under one of those kingdoms that was more dependent on the Sassanids because the Marzaban officially appointed by the Sassanids.   So even Chaumonst agrees that it has a vassal king (hence it is a vassal kingdom), but a vassal kingdom that was subordinate to the Marzaban, hence you will also see it mention as a province, which does not contradict each other.  To summarize Wieshofer is not specific on which province/vassal kingdom but he is mentioning 293 A.D. (Paikuli) in general. But he is not contradicting Chaumont.  The only sources that would contradict Chaumonst would be those that say : 1) Caucasian Albania did not have a Marzuban 2)  The Marzuban was a subordinate to the vassal king.  So we can say Caucasian Albania had its own line of Kings, even Chauamonst calls him a vassal king, but these were subordinate to the Marzuban.  It is obviously odd that a place is both called a vassal kingdom and has a Marzuban that controlled the vassal King, but this is actually an invention of the Sassanid governance.  Of course if you find a source that says the Marzaban was a subordinate to the vassal King, then that is definitely a contrarian viewpoint and as long as it is WP:RS and non-Soviet/high quality, then it is fine.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note while Wieshofer is mentioning Paikuli inscription, he does not specifically mention Albania and its relationship. Chaumont though does: "The vicissitudes of Sasanian policy under Narseh were to have no repercussions on the political situation of Albania.  although the treaty of Nisibis stipulated the reestablishment of the Roman protectorate over Iberia, Albania remained an integral part of the Sasanian Empire".  So Wiesehofer does not specifically mention Albania's relationship but he mentions some of the kingdoms.  Note also Sassanid Armenia was not semi-independent as well.  The same article: "As regards the hazarapet (also mentioned under Yazdegerd II, see ibid., 2.2, tr. p. 65), it is not known exactly what were his prerogatives in Albania; it is possible that, as in Sasanian Armenia, he was immediately subordinate to the marzbān. "  Or here:  "The first Sassanian Marzapan (Marzuban) appointed to Armenia in 428 seems to have been a relatively tolerant and reasonable man, and the grant of the office of Hazarapet to the native of narxarar Vahan Amatuni left the civilization administration and consequently a considerable amount of authority in the hands of the Armenian magnate".  Despite all of this, the Marzuban was the ultimate authority in Sassanid Armenia and Albania.  There were local "kings" (more like fiefs) but the Marzapan/Marzuban (the protectoror of the border) was the ultimate authority and he was directly appointed by the King of Kings and the king of the vassal kingdom through the Marzuban was a subordinate of the King of Kings. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at page 184 of Wiesehofer, he is comparing the inscriptions of Shapur, Narseh and Kerdir. Here he mentions 'parts of the empire','provinces'. Then he discussed Paikuli (Narseh) as we discussed above.  So it appears in Shapur's era, he says:"Certain regions were entrusted as 'kingdoms' to the sons of the 'king of kings'..".  The word 'kingdom' in quote but the words sons and entrusted are not.  Also on vassalage, Wiesehofer has it in quotes 'vassalage', much like 'kingdom' and states: "This term, which applies to medieval Europe, incorporates the threefold condition of the oath of allegiance and military support on one hand, and enfeoffment with ususfruct of land property on other, conditions that, due to lack of sources, cannot be confirmed for the period under discussion".  So here, he basically is not confirming vassalage in the European sense.  Of course we have information on some 'provinces'/'kingdoms' more than others.  Albania is one of those and Chaumont gives a good description.  Wiesehofer says nothing specifically about Albania in its 400 year interaction with the Sassanid and he does not specify which 'Kingdom'(s) he is talking about in Paikuli (but it is not all of them).  He is comparing three inscriptions and at least for the KZ inscription, he is confirming Albania  as a 'province'. What I agree is that Albania had its own kings, but so did many other parts/'kingdoms'/'provinces' of the Sassanid empire.  That is why the Sassanid King is not called a King but King of kings.  In terms of Albania specifically, we need sources that discuss it specifically. These Kings of Albania were really Persian/Parthians (although local) and they were subordinate to the powerful Marzaban.  In the Sassanid era, different places had their Shah (kings)(hence they were 'kingdoms') but were subordinate to the Shahanshah.  Titles such as Sherwanshah, Arranshah, ..exactly denote these local kings and you can find such titles in Iran proper (Gilan had Gilanshah).  But if an area had a Marzaban, then the Marzaban would have more control than the local ruler (King/Shah/Hazarsped).  So that is why again it has been described both as a 'kingdom' and a 'province'.


 * Minorsky also has an interesting take:"However, the Persians penetrated into this region at a very early date in connection with the need to defend the northern frontier of the Iranian empire. Possibly already under the Achaemenids some measures were taken to protect the Caucasian passes against the invaders, but the memory of the fortification of the most important of them, Darband (in Armenian Ch’or, in Arabic al-Sul, but usually al-Bab) and of a series of “gates’* (i.e. fortified passes), is traditionally connected with the names of the Sasanian kings Kavat (in Arabic: Qubadh b. Firuz, A.D. 488-531) and his famous son Khusrau (Chosroes, Kisra) Anushirvan (A.D. 531-79). A brief account of these works will be found on p. 86. Apart from such feats of military engineering, the Sasanians strove to reinforce their northern frontier by organising vassal principalities of local tribes and by settling in its neighbourhood large numbers of their subjects, chiefly from the Caspian provinces. The titles Tabarsaran-shah, Khursan-shah, Vardan-shah, “the Lord of the Throne”(sarir), etc., found in Muslim historians (cf. Baladhuri, 207), refer to the first class of indigenous vassals, though even in this case some tribal names may have in view not the aboriginal inhabitants but the aristocracy of outsiders superimposed upon them."


 * Note he mentions the Sassanids organized vassal principalities. So this actually shows they saw this as an effective way of ruling.


 * So solution is that we should provide a description on why in the sources, it has been described as a 'vassal kingdom' and also a 'province' and these are not contradictory. Province in the Sassanid sense sometimes meant great internal freedom (like the Arab Lakhmids)and other times none.  Due to lack of data, we do not have enough information on whole entire 400 year Sassanid period to assess the degree of interal control by the local kingdom at each year and his relation with the king of kings.  But we know around about 200 years of it, the area had a Marzaban and it is possible for the other 200 years, while it was loyal to the empire and considered itself part of the empire, it enjoyed greater degree of interal freedom.  Sometimes it is mentioned as a province: ". 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. Albania appears among the Sasanian provinces listed in the trilingual inscription of Šāpūr I at Naqš-e Rostam  ".  Both Albania or Armenia where either part of the Roman empire or part of the Sassanid empire. "Justinian, however, advised them to remain under Sasanian rule ".   Sometimes they were controlled by Marzabans and other times, while remaining loyal to the empire, controlled their own internal affair.  But my main reason for removal was obviously such a sentence did not exist in Wiesehofer and also I do not think Chaumont and others are contradicting each other, at most they are describing different periods(say Paikuli by Wiesehofer) within a 400 years and this needs careful examination and intrepretation.  I think a breakdown of the different periods in the Sassanid era will automatically show when Albania was directly controlled by the Sassanids (when it had Marzabans) and when it might have been possibly a more autonomous part of the Sassanid empire.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I should add there is a lot of legends in this article which does not go with facts. Partaw/Piruz-apat was clearly build by Sassanids as was Ganja probably, Paytharakan, and some other areas. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * about Sassanids: ..........
 * As I once have read 7 provinces of Sasanids were ruled by rulers who had the title of Shah. Shahanshah was then the biggest king and empror. Regular provinces had Shahrdar. And yet we hear about Marzban. There is some ambiguity here one opinion is that at certain period of times other titles and positions existed. The other is that marzban was there to check and balance the power of traditional king. Something else was also Padgostban or Padusban, fardusban. these were generals and governors who each controled a quarter of the empire. This is thought also to be the case in a time period and not permanently. We know more about this part of empire than other parts, so there might have been herditary kings in other parts too. The main thing is that in Albania, Armenia and Iberia the Parthian nobility could maintain their power in the local politics into the Sasanian era. The main thing is simple: Caucasian Albania, Armenia and Iberia were all ruled by the Sasanid empire.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In Albania, there were periods when the ruling dynasty became extinct. That's when in was ruled by Persian marzban or shahrab. This is quite in line with what Wiesehofer says:


 * Whether the 'kingdoms' also had a shahrab as a kind of deputy of the shah cannot be ascertained. It has been assumed that 'provinces' were established only where no other form of government existed,


 * This is said about all kingdoms, otherwise he would say something like "whether all the kingdoms had a shahrab". The Albanian kings were vassals of the Sasanian ones, but Albania was not a province (shahr), it was a kingdom. Wiesehofer says that there were kingdoms, and provinces. Obviously, they had different status. Albania was a kingdom, not province. Wiesehofer does not say that kingdoms certainly had shahrabs as deputies, or representatives of the shah. According to him, it is a possibility, but not a known fact. Indeed, from ancient chronicles we know the names of the kings of Albania, but not marzubans, which is strange, if they indeed were the main rulers. Since the 1st century A.D. the Albanian kings were of Parthian origin (see Arsacid Dynasty of Caucasian Albania), and later they were replaced by Persian Mihranid dynasty, so obviously they had strong Iranian connections, but were autonomous in their internal affairs. In any case, I don't think that the 2 sources allow us to say that Albanian kings had no power at all. But what is certain is that the Albanian kings were loyal vassals of the Sasanian empire, which is why the Persians helped them to gain the right bank of Kura from Armenia. At times the power of local kings weakened, and marzuban took the control, but I don't think this could be said about the entire period of the Albanian statehood under the Sasanian influence. So I think we should present all the existing points of view, Iranica and Wiesehofer. I think it is better to start with the facts that both sources agree with. 1. Albania was a kingdom, not a province ruled solely by a governor. 2. Albanian kings were vassals of Sasanians. And there's another point about which the sources have different opinions. Chaumont believes that Albania had a marzuban appointed by the shah, and the power of the kings was nominal. Wiesehofer says that whether or not there was a shahrab representing the shah is not clear. So I think we need to state all these points, one way or another. We just need to find the best way of presenting the scholarly opinions. Also, I think the article called Albania (satrapy) should be deleted. It is a fork of this one, and only repeats the information contained in this article. We don't need 2 almost identical articles. -- Grand master  11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * dear Grandmaster hierchy is in the core of any empire. I think it is wrong to say that the Albanian King had no power. As I said he might had the title Shah, but this is Shahanshah who is the ultimate sovereign. I also think the distinction between Sharab/ Sharban/ Shahrdar and King is not very important. They are he same . According to Christiansen the Sharbans/...dars.../abs were from nobility and royal dynasties. In fact they were subroys or kings who were loyal to Shahanshah. There is not much clearity about the Marzbans. As I remember )if im not mistaken in Christiansen's book) Darband had a Marzbans. Marzbans were different than shahr....s/kings. Marzbans were not the governors of provinces but were military deputies of Shahnshah in the border areas. Also Shahr is not the same as province. There were also Shahristan and Kura, which can better be translated as province. This I understood after looking into subject is such sources as Christiansen, Frye and Gnoli.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiesehofer, is talking about Paikuli inscription (293 A.D.). He is not contradicting Chaumont if we look at it closely. He is not talking about 400 years of rule and he is not talking about Albania specifically.  Note page 184: "Regarding the 'imperial service', a key priority is to define the territorial-administrative units('parts of the empire', 'provinces').  For the early period,there are again found in the inscriptions of Shapur, Narseh and Mobard Kirdir.  Here is the beginning of the inscription of KSZ:...Albania".  (So at least he is calling it a province for the Kaba Zartosht inscription. Then he goes on:) If we compare this with Narseh (293 A.D.) we see they have much in common but there are certain differences, i.e. changes.  For Shapur we find certain regions were entrusted as 'kingdoms' to the sons of 'King of Kings' and other dynasts.
 * Wiesehofer is not talking about 400 years of Sassanid rule of Albania. He is talking about early Sassanid period and three specific inscriptions.  He is not extending these three inscriptions to all 400 years of Sassanid rule.  He is simply saying certain regions were entrusted as 'kingdoms' in one inscription but where provinces in the Kerdir inscription.  We are talking about 400 years of Sassanid rule, where Marzabans did exist for many of the periods.  Wiesehofer is not saying they did not exist in Albania, since he is talking about a Satraps not Marzaban.  Marzaban were a form of Satrap in a way, but they were somewhat different as well.   Finally, when he says: Wether the 'Kingdoms' also had Shahrab(Satrap) as a kind of deputy of the Shah cannot be ascertained.  This statement is not specific to Albania for 400 years, but is only about the specific inscriptions of Paikuli (293 A.D.) at the specific time of Narseh.  Again the approach that Wiesehofer is contradicting Chaumont is not the right approach.  We cannot extend 293 A.D. to 400 years of Sassanid rule.  Also the position of Satrap and Marzaban is somewhat different.  There is similarities but also a differences.  For example, the provinces (Shahrs) would all have Satraps, but not all of them would have Marzabans.  Chauamont's article is about 400 years of Albania under Sassanid rule, Wiesehofer is just listing Albania as a Kingdom in the Paikuli inscription alongside many other 'kingdoms' while mentioning it as a province in the KSZ inscription, but: 1) he does not use the term vassalage (he says it does not apply due to lack of data). 2) He is using the term kingdom in quotes and says that the 'king' was entrusted.  Frankly, Wieseofer is using 'Kingdom' in quotes even and 'provinces' too.  Finally, Wiesehofer is not denying there was no Marzabans in the 400 years of Sassanid rule.  He is talking about Satrap which is a different position.  Overall, Wiesehofer due to the generality of the source and highly intrepretive nature here and not being specific about which kingdoms/provinces, cannot be given the same weight as Chaumont.  Chaumont is writing about Albania.  He calls it both a province and kingdom and a vassal king but nominal power.  Wiesehofer, talking about many of the lands (not just Albania), does not get into any of the details and calls Albania a province for KSZ, a 'kingdom' entrusted by the King of Kings for Paikuli (293 A.D.), is not sure if the term vassalage is right and then finally is not sure if all the kingdoms had a Satrap or not (in Paikulu 293 A.D.), which is different than a Marzaban.  Chaumont is talking about Marzabans which is not the same as Satrap, so again no contradiction.  The statement of Wiesehofer, if your intrepretation is correct, is at most specific for the Paikuli inscription.  In the KSZ, he lists Albania as a province.  Virtually every region of the Sassanids had Shahs (local rulers) and it was not specific to Albania, most of these Shahs were either Sassanid princes or Parthians tied to marriage with Sassanids.  So we cannot ignore that in KSZ he is calling it a province, and he is saying the Kingdom was entrusted in Paikuli by the King of Kings, he is saying due to lack of data :the term vassalage does not apply.  Virtually every province of Sassanids had a local King who was entrusted with a kingdom.  Note Chauamont states: After the death of Vačē, Albania was to remain for thirty years without a king. It was the Sasanian Balāš (r. 484-88) who decided to reestablish the Albanian monarchy in the person of Vačagan, son of Yazdegerd and brother of the previous king Vačē.  So that is Sassanids were the ones that decided if an area had a Kingdom or not.  And that is why Wiesehofer alsos tates the Kingdoms were entrusted by the King of Kings.  Overall, I do not see how is he contradicting Chaumont.  Since Chaumont also calls it a province and a kingdom (like Wiesehofer), also calls it a vassal King, but finally unlike Wiesehofer who is talking about many of the provinces/lands, Chauamont is talking about specifically Albania.  So the status of Albania should come from a specific source about Albania.  Wiesehofer specifically talking about three inscriptions also uses kingdom and province for two different inscriptions (albeit an entrusted kingdom) and shows  it as part of the Sassanid empire in map 4a.  Chauamont also calls it a vassal king and province and integral part of Sassanid empire.  Wiesehofer is not sure if there was a Satrap or not in the entrusted kingdoms which he also refers to as province in KSZ, but Chaumont is talking about Marzabans not Satrap.  About ancient chronices, we also know there were Marzabans and they even minted silver coins.  The Sassanids build the cities of Darband, Partav and etc., and were paid by the Romans directly for maintaing this wall.  Finally Wiesehofer obviously shows that in the map, Albania was part of the Sassanid empire.  So I think the solution is that various sources have mentioned Albania as province and also a kingdom (which both Chaumont and Wiesehofer) have.  Wiesehofer then states the kingdoms were entrusted by the King of Kings.  And then he is not sure about Satrap.  Which is fine, because the provinces (Shahrs) would all have Satraps, but not all of them would have Marzabans.  Same with the Kingdoms, they would all have Kings, but not all of them would have Marzabans and/or Satrap.  So I do not mind quoting Wisehofer, but just quoting him within within the context of the Paikuli and KZ inscriptions, but also to quote Wiesehofer, we are describing many of the provinces and Sassanid structure as whole and also the early Sassanid period (not all 400 years).  Note the Sassanids entrusted the kingship (according to Wiesehofer) and when there was no king, they re-created it in Albania (Chaumont).  So again there is no contradiction between Chaumont and Wiesehofer.  We just have to quote them correctly.  Note Wiesehofer also uses the term province loosely and does not exactly equate it with Shahr. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On [], I think we can copy the material here (if some are missing) and then do a redirect. It is clear though Britannica calls it a province and Wiesehofer also calls it a province (KSZ) and also a kingdom (Paikuli) for different perionds. Chaumont also calls it a province and a kingdom. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note this source as well []. The Armenian monarchy did not long survive, it was abolished in 428 and replaced by a Persian governor or Marzaban who had his seeat in Dwin.  Otherwise, the Persian Transcaucasus was ruled by a collection of client kingdoms under the princes loyal to the Persians, several of whom converted to Zoroastrianism..
 * Wiesehofer also mentions Armenia as one of the kingdoms, in the KSZ inscription he mentions Armenia as a shahr (province), and then finally, in 428 it was ruled by Marzaban and its kingdom abolished. It would be a very wild exaggeration to say Armenia also did not have a Marzaban. So we simply need to not generalize the whole Sassanid period.


 * Overall I am for stating different sources. But to take the position that these sources contradict each other is WP:OR/WP:Synthesis.  Both Wiesehofer and Chauamont have used province/kingdom for Albania.  We need to write that whole section cleanly and making sure to enumerate the various time periods, when possible.   I'll let GM do that and I'll edit upon top of that.  Even a kingdom and province do not contradict each other in the Sassanid sense, since Sassanids established kingdoms in their provinces and entrusted it to Parthian/Persian households.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also see this: "I am the ruler of Ērān-šahr and hold these šahrs(translated as provinces by Wiesehofer): Persia, Parthia, Xuzistān, Mēšān, Assyria, Adiabene, Arabia, Āzerbaījan, Armenia, Geogris, Segan, Albania, Balaskan, up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania, and all of the mountain chain of Pareshwar, Media, Gurgan, Merv, Herāt and all of Abaršahr, Kermān, Sīstan, Tūrān, Makrān, Paradene, India, Kušānšahr up to Peshawar and up to Kašgar, Sogdiana and to the mountains of Taškent, and on the other side of the sea, Oman." This is the Shapur I inscription. []. The word used here is Shahr and this is the portion where Wiesehofer is clear it is a province when he mentions it in KSZ. Then when they had their own "shahs" (which were entrusted by the Sassanid Kings) and they became kingdoms (Paikuli), but how dependent these kingdoms were on the Sassanids depends on who was the effective ruler. During the periods when Marzabans were appointed, the power was with Marzabans. To claim Wiesehofer is stating there was no Marzaban in the 400 year period of Sassanids is revisionism, since he is referring to the early Sassanid period, does not use the term Marzaban but Satrap and note Armenia was a kingdom at one period, but then in 428 it was completely under the Marzaban. So one cannot take the claim that Armenia was always a kingdom under Sassanids based on Wiesehofer. It is the same with Albania. When it was a province (Shapur inscription), it was a kingdom (Paikuli) is known. How dependent this kingdom was again it requires various periods, but it was nevertheless always considered part of the empire (as the map of 4a shows) and in general either a kingdom entrusted by the Sassanids, a province or a kingdom controlled by the Marzaban. It just requires the 400 year or so period of the Sassanids to be broken up more clearly. So again I am for stating all the sources, but to claim sources are contradicting each other should be left up to the reader. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note Chaumont is stating: "The marzbāns had their seat at Pʿartaw, the capital, where in the 5th and 6th centuries they minted silver coinage". If there was a Marzban, then we can still call it a kingdom and a province. This part that section of Wiesehofer has nothing about since it is talking about early Sassanid period. It is possible that during the Paikuli inscription (293 A.D.), there might not have been a Marzaban in the area of Albania as there was none in Armenia until 428 A.D. So at least we should distinguish three phases of Sassanid rule A)(5th,6h centuries) when there was clearly a marzban B)(early 3rd century) (mentioned as a province (Shahr) in the Shapur inscription), C)late 3rd century (mentioned with shah and as a kingdom entrusted by the Sassanids and loyal to them and based on Wiesehofer),

The other periods, we are not sure about. It is uncertain if the kingdom had Satrap during the Paikuli inscription (according to Wiesehofer) although again Wiesehofer does not use the term vassalage and he says it is unclear, but he does say the kingdoms were entrusted by the Sassanids. So I think mentioning these separate periods should help in bringing some clarity. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Here is what I mean though that province and kingdom do not contradict each other. Note it is mentioned both as a province and kingdom. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But look, the source that you quote says: Otherwise, the Persian Transcaucasus was ruled by a collection of client kingdoms under the princes loyal to the Persians, several of whom converted to Zoroastrianism. So, Albania was a client kingdom, a state, depending on Persia, but not a province. Provinces do not have kings, right? And Wiesehofer also says that the lands dominated by Persia were 2 types, kingdoms, ruled by vassal kings, and provinces, ruled by governors. Obviously, Albania falls into the first category. Right now, the article does not even say that Albanian king was a vassal to the Persian shah, which is no good. I think we need to explain these nuances. -- Grand master  07:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There were periods in the history of Albania when it had no kings. At those times the country was ruled by Persian governors. Chaumont says for example: After the death of Vache, Albania remained without a king for thirty years. The Sasanian Balash reestablished the Albanian monarchy by making Vachagan, son of Yazdegerd and brother of the previous king Vache, the king of Albania. During those 30 years the country apparently was ruled by Persian governors. But in general, the sources in my opinion are contradict about the role of the Persian marzbans. Chaumont says that they had all the power, Wiesehofer is less certain. Grand  master  07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, there seems to that a state can again take the meaning of both province and kingdom. United StatesMy point was that there references to Marzabans in Iberia, Albanua, Armenia and also they seem to have minted their own coins in the 5th/6th centuries in Albania and other places.  Sassanids would set a local king in many provinces (hence Kingdoms) but they would be the Shahanshah (the king of the Kings).  It is really a complex governing system and most of the kingdoms would be Parthian/Persian households who have intermarried with Sassanids.  Wisehofer though does not use term vassalage or vassal king.  But rather entrusted kingdoms.  I think the best approach is to see what periods there was definite Marzabans and what periods there was not.  The best evidence would be obviously numismatists.  Something like: "Albania has been characterized as a province, a client kingdom or  both in different periods of the Sassanid era.. In the Ksz it is listed as one of the provinces.. in Paikuli it is liste as a kingdom.. in the periods 5th/6th marzabans.. ".  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be the best approach, because it seems that in different periods situation was different. It is beyond any doubt that Albania was dependent on Persia, but the fact that it was ruled by marzbans only does not appear to be certain. I think marzbans ruled only when the local dynasties became extinct, because Wiesehofer also says:


 * It has been assumed that 'provinces' were established only where no other form of government existed, i.e. in all the regions directly subject to the 'king of kings', for instance in the former 'royal land' of the Parthian kings or in the newly conquered territories.


 * So if there was a local line of kings, loyal to Sasanians, they would be made subjects of the shahanshah, and not replaced with governors. So I think marzbans ruled Albania when the country had no kings, and there were such long periods in its history. -- Grand master  18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Granmaster, I think the distinction between regular province and Kingdom is a bit exaggerated. As Christansen says there were a few Royal/ noble families and they ruled the different "Shahr"s. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like the kings were different from the regular governors. I think Nepaheshgar's proposal makes sense. We should write something like "Albania has been characterized as a province, a client kingdom or both in different periods of the Sassanid era. According to M.L. Chaumont, the kings of Albania were the one of the chief vassals to the Persian shahanshahs, but had only nominal power, while the real authority was in the hands of the Persian marzbans. However it appears that this arrangement was not permanent, as the Paikuli inscription describes Albania as a kingdom, and not a province, and the relations of the rulers of kingdoms with the shahanshahs are described as vassalage". How about this version, as a compromise?-- Grand master  07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a good way to go. However, I think Wiesehofer does not use the term vassalage .  Chaumont does use Vassal King although he does mention it as a province.  That is his source is one that mentions both province and kingdom like cambridge history of Iran.  Wiesehofer does mention kingdom for Paikuli but also mentions Albania as a province according to KSZ.  Although he does hesitantly equate Shahr with province.  Wiesehofer talks about entrusted kingdom which is close to client kingdom.  Minorsky seems to be saying that Sassanids created different kingdoms in Albania in later period.  Cambridge history mentions four different titles: Shirvanshah, Alanshah, Filanshah and Baghranshah around the area.  Probably unless there is source that mentions Albania as a vassal kingdom, we should use client kingdom or province or both.  I am currently interested in this sentence of Chaumont:   "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). ".  The numismatists evidence is usually the best evidence on the periods of Marzaban.  The date of exactly when these coins were minted should give a good clue.  I would be interested to know if anyone has access to this source and furthermore if there are also coins from the Persian/Parthian kings of Albania at this time.  That is in the 5th and 6th century, do we have also coinage with the picture of the name of the king of the client state.  Books such as Kalankatuachi and Moses of Khoren are written much after and are usually from a hostile anti-Zoroastrian/Persian perspective.  However my only issue with Wiesehofer is that he talks about many kingdoms and is not a specific source.  That is it is misleading sort of if we think Wiesehofer is only concentrating on Albania where-as the other source (Mark Whittow) who uses client kingdom does.  I am about to send Wiesehofer an e-mail with several questions and I have CC'ed Grandmaster, Babak and Khoikhoi to see what he states.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also should add: "The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movses Dasxuranc'i translated by C. J. F. Dowsett" does mention some Marzapans by name. For example on page 96, it mentions the name of Marzapan of Albania as Semavshtnas.  Another place it mentions a Marzapan by the name Mehr-buxt in the area (Iberia or Albania).  Of course this is a primary source (with lots of anti-Zoroastrian/Sassanid bias) but it does give actual names.  Some materials in this article are legendary rather than factual, like the foundation of the city of Barda' that needs to be fixed.  A book on Sassanid coinage should be out soon: [] that should have details hopefully on the coins struck by the Marzbans of the areas.   Overall the Sassanid era influence was huge, given that Middle Persian coins, inscriptions and towns and toponyms (Sherwan, Darband, Barda, Beylakan, Ganja possibly Baku..) are numerous and I think the Sassanid era should be expanded to include lots of these details.  The Parthian era too needs its own section.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys I think we are on a good way.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I think what we have suggested is good.. I am just waiting for a reply from an author which I cc'ed Grandmaster before we proceed. Minorsky makes a point: "In 461 the rebel king Vach’e lost his throne and the country was apparently taken over by the direct Persian administration.  Even under the Sasanians Sharvan, Layzan and other principalities of the northern bank of the Kur were completely separated from Arran. Towards the end of the sixth century a new dynasty, issued from a Mihran sprang up in Arran and was soon converted to Christianity.".  So it is possible that we have three stages: KSZ,Shapur inscription call it a province, Paikuli calls it a kingdom (sources uses client kingdom or possibly vassate state) and then in 461 A.D. it was under direct Sassanid administrator.  Some titles like Sharvanshah, Layzanshah, Filanshah, Bagranshah and etc. also shows that parts of Caucasian Albania were under separate fiefs in later periods.  The Sassanid era is very detailed but it requires care to bring out all the details correctly.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really interested in what Mr. Wiesehofer has to say about this, because we may have different understanding of his words, but he could clarify to us what he meant in his book when refering to kingdoms and vassalage. I think it is certain that Albania was not a regular province, i.e. shahr, which was ruled solely by a Persian governor. It belonged to the category of kingdoms, and had its own line of kings. In that case, should it be classified as a province, or a vassal state? It looks certain that at times the royal dynasty became extinct, and the marzbans ruled the country in the abcence of the monarchy, but what was the relation of kings of Albania with the Persian shahanshah? Was it vassalage, or something else? To me this is not clear and obvious, and I see some contradiction in sources. I think what Minorsky says make sense, the country was ruled by the marzbans when the royal dynasty lost its power. As for Shirvan, it was Persianized in Sasanian times, and the name of Arran (Albania) became applied only to the region between Araks and Kura, while originally it covered the area extending to the Caspain sea. This is what Bosworth says:

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. Grand master  10:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I e-mailed you also, but he replied back to me, which I forwarded to the Greenwood fellow below. This was his response: "Dear Sir, please, be not too angry with me if I refer you to colleagues of mine in this respect. I am much more a 'generalist' in Sasanian matters than an expert in Caucasian matters. But Dr. Tim Greenwood of St. Andrews, an expert in Armenian and Caucasian history, is probably the best person to answer your questions (twg3_AT_st-andrews.ac.uk). For me, it would be a lot of work to get into the details of the Albanian question. Apart from Tim, Stephen Rapp, an expert in Georgian history, and Rika Gyselen of the CNRS Paris who wrote the decisive book on Sasanianb administration could also be of help (Rika knows best the sigillographic material which is of great importance for the history of Sasanian shahrs and vassal kingdoms). Best regards".
 * Overall I support using Minorsky and Chaumont, as Wiesehofer is really not sure. That is why it is valid from Wikipedia point of view but he is just saying too many things that are not really related to Albania.  Minorsky and Chaumont though seem to be specific.  I also e-mailed Dr. Greenwood but so far no response unfortunately. Whittow also called it a client kingdom.  So I think the compromise version of calling it client kingdom/kindom and province at different period  is good.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be alright. It does not seem that there was some sort of a stable status of the region throughout the centuries of its history. Grand  master  07:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)