Talk:Hasan-Jalalyan

Country
Marshall, please stop POV editing. There was no country called Armenia in the 13th century. The fact that you readded inaccurate info shows that you take confrontational approach. I don't think there's any need of doing that. Grandmaster 05:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't accusing people of POV accusations get tiring after a while? I already distinguished the fact that I'm not referring to it as a country per se; however if you find any map of the Caucasus from the 1300s onwards, you're going to find the general region labeled as "Armenia"., , , , , etc.


 * There may have been several fully independent Armenian kingdoms but travelers for centuries on end called it by no other name but Armenia.--MarshallBagramyan 05:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Karabakh was not Armenia. It was part of regions of Arran or Azerbaijan. If you are refering to a region, it should be Albania/Arran. Grandmaster 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Ulubabian is not a good source. It is a modern Armenian nationalistic historian. You would not want me to refer to Mamedova or Bunyadov, would you? Grandmaster 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Movses Kaghankatvatsi states that Aranshahiks were Armenian, who were massacred by Mihranids:

Этот затаил в своем сердце [желание] погубить древний род hАйказеан – Ераншаhиков, о которых в сей книге мы писали выше

... the ancient Armenian (i.e. haykazyan) - Aranshahiks, about whom we have written earlier

http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/aluank2.html

As far as Armenia is concerned, Marshall is right--travelers referred to the area as "Armenia," even though the state didn't exist. In Griboyedov's letters, the Yerevan-Karabakh area conquered by RUssia is called Armenia. Arran was part of Armenia, according to Movses Khorenatsi.--TigranTheGreat 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Haikazian doesn't mean "Armenian"; it's a name of a separate dynasty:
 * Nowhere does Movses Khorenatsi say that Arran was part of Armenia. Arran is an Arabic name for Caucasian Albania. Armenia at the time was nothing but an abstract historical notion without clear borders or proper statehood. It's the same as if you said Budapest is located in a country called Pannonia. Hasan Jalalyans ruled while their lands were officially governed by the Mongol Empire - it makes perfect sense to mention that in the article rather than Armenia. Parishan 01:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all Haikazian means Armenian more than saying Armenian! Arran was part of Armenia. Arran was never a separate entity.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I kind of don't care what it means in Armenian. I provided a source where it is defined as a name of a ruling dynasty. If it meant Armenian, it would be translated into Russian accordingly, but it is not (it literally reads "the ancient clan of Haikazian – Yeranshahiks") because it refers to a dynasty name. And if you think Caucasian Albania was never independent, that's just too bad for you: see the respective article. Parishan 03:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arranshahs (Persian Arran + shah = rulers of Arran) were descendants of Persian Mihran, that's why they are also referred to as Mihranids. And Arran was not Armenia, it was what Persians and Arabs called Caucasian Albania. Why are you arguing about obvious things? The region was not located in Armenia geographically, nor was part of a state of that name, as it did not exist in the 13th century. Grandmaster 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Iranica:


 * Towards the end of the 5th century, the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania seems to have died out, and in the later 6th century and at the time of the Arab invasions some decades after then, Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihran family, who claimed descent from the Sasanians but were probably of Parthian origin. Their most famous representatives in the 7th century were Varaz-Grigor, his son Juansher (Persian Javanshir) and Varaz-Trdat I. The military exploits of the latter two potentates in the period of the first Arab invasions of Armenia and Arran figure prominently in the 2nd book of Movses Dasxuranci's chronicle. These princes bore the Persian title of Arranshah (in certain of the Arabic sources corruptly written as Liranshah), Armenian Eranshahik or Aranshahik. Grandmaster 05:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a primary source (Movses Kaghankatvatsi) stating that Aranshahiks (or Eranshahiks) were Armenian, and they were murdered by Mihranids.

Этот затаил в своем сердце [желание] погубить древний род hАйказеан – Ераншаhиков, о которых в сей книге мы писали выше

The above passage talks about how the Mihranid prince attempted to exterminate "the ancient Armenian (i.e. haykazyan)" family of Arranshahiks.

http://www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/kagantv/aluank2.html --TigranTheGreat 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should use interpretation of primary sources by secondary ones wherever possible according to the rules. So we should use Iranica. You cannot simply delete it as if it does not exist, like you did. Also, pre-Mihranid Arranshahs, if there ever existed such, could not be ancestors of Hasan-Jalal, as they were all murdered. Grandmaster 10:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said they were all murdered. Some could very well have survived. Also, Iranica never says that the alternate name of Mihranids was Aranshahs. Iranica says "it was a title used by them"--like a tzar. So, Iranica doesn't contradict the primary source, and hence the primary source still stands. Mihranids murdered Aranshahsiks (not all of them). Then they took the title "Aranshah." Then Sahl-Smbatyan, who claimed descent from Aranshahs, killed the Mihranids. And Hasan-Jalal descended from Sahl-Smbatyan.--TigranTheGreat 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sahl was descendant of Mihranids himself. And Kalankatuatsi says that Mihran's son killed all members of the previous dynasty, except for one person, who was his relative. So clearly, Arranshahs were Persian or Parthian, which is attested by the sources. Grandmaster 11:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which source says that Sahl was Mihranid?--TigranTheGreat 11:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got Minorsky wrong. Actually, Sahl was not related to Mihranids, but assumed the title of Arranshahs after the murder of the last Mihranid.


 * The title Eranshahik, under which the historian of Albania (Kalankatuatsi) presents him in this passage, is probably given him in anticipation, for immediately after, and under the same year, Moses speaks of the murder of the last Mihranid Varaz-Trdad by a certain Ter-Nerseh P'ilippean. We do not know whether the latter acted on behalf of Sahl, but Sahl surely profited by the crime, as he assumed the title of the victim. As Varaz-Trdad is called the last Mihranid, it is clear that Sahl did not belong to that house.


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


 * However, Minorsky says nothing about the connection of the Albanian prince Sahl with the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania. The older Arransahs were not Armenian either, they were also Persian or Parthian, which explains the Persian title of Arranshahs:


 * After the death of Vache, Albania was to remain for thirty years without a king. It was the Sasanian Balash (r. 484-88) who decided to reestablish the Albanian monarchy in the person of Vachagan, son of Yazdegerd and brother of the previous king Vache (Movses, History 1.16, tr. p. 25). According to this version, Vachagan Barepash (the pious) must have been descended from the royal family of Persia.


 * Grandmaster 13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, we have established that Hasan-Jalal did not descend from Mihranid. The only issue is whether Aranshahiks were Armenian or not. Movses Kaghankatvatsi clearly states that they were. Minorsky never says that Vachagan was Aranshahik, neither does Kaghankatvatsi, so Vachagan's origin is irrelevant. --TigranTheGreat 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kalankatuatsi does not say that they were Armenian, that’s your interpretation. He says that he knows nothing about the origin of Albanian kings, whom he lists. See:


 * Число царей от Арана до Вачагана Храброго, который был из великого рода Аршакуни, неизвестно. И о том, из какого рода они, достоверного я ничего не могу сказать. Вот по порядку имена тех, кто царствовал над страной Алуанк: Вачаган Храбрый, Вачэ, Урнайр, Иавчаган [Uіхгі•іЭ], Мерhаван, Сато, Асай, Есвален, Вачэ, далее Вачаган Благочестивый – царь Алуанка. Многие из них были христолюбивыми и, прожив добродетельной жизнью, почили каждый в свое время. Однако никому из них не было дано обрести сокрытое божественное и духовное сокровище, а только последнему Вачагану Благочестивому царю Алуанка.


 * As for the last king from the original dynasty (or dynasties), we know that he was Persian (according to Iranica), and his name was Vachagan. Kalankatuatsi also says that Vachagan The Brave (first Vachagan) was Arshakid, so indeed he was related to the royal dynasty of Parthia/Persia. So the kings of Albania were not Armenian, they were of local or Parthian/Persian origin as attested by sources. Also, you provided no reliable sources about connection between Sahl and Hasan-Jalal. Grandmaster 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your source that Hasan-Jalal was Aranshah? Or claimed to be? We established earlier that he was not Mihranid.--TigranTheGreat 18:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Why were Arranshahs (which basically means king of Albania in Persian) added to this article anyway? From what I can see they had no connections with Hasan-Jalal. Grandmaster 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Marshall claims that Iranica says nothing about ethnic origin of Mihranids, he obviously has not read the source. It says: Towards the end of the 5th century, the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania seems to have died out, and in the later 6th century and at the time of the Arab invasions some decades after then, Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihran family, who claimed descent from the Sasanians but were probably of Parthian origin. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We are arguing over nothing. There was no dynasty of Arranshahs, as I said, it just means king of Albania in Persian. So all the rulers of Albania were Arranshahs (kings of Albania), but the Persian title was apparently assumed when people of Iranian origin started ruling the country. We need to clarify which dynasty the reference is made to and what was the connection between Hasan-Jalal and the ruling dynasties of Albania. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Any Arsacid beyond the 3rd century AD is by default Armenian.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure there was a dinasty of Aranshahiks (Eranshahiks). Movses Kaghankatvatsi himvself refers to the "ancient family of Eranshahiks" who were Haykazyan (hence they were Armenian).

The real question is, why were Mihranids added? They have absolutely nothing to do with Hasan Jalal.--TigranTheGreat 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Albanian kings were of Partian origin, same as kings of Armenia. I posted info about the last ruler of pre-Mihranid dynasty, he was son of Yazdigerd, ruler of Persia. Anyway, I see no connection between Arranshahs and Hasan-Jalal house. I suggest to delete that reference. Grandmaster 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Albanians never had their own Arsacid branch. Their Kings were of the Armenian Arshakuni branch not the main Parthian branch, by the time they took over most of Albania they were already entirely Armenianized. It's not rocket science, the Bagrationis of Georgia had ancient Armenian origins but they were not Armenian. Likewise, the Arsacids in Albania were not Parthian.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an original research. Plus, as I said, the last king of the ancient dynasty (Vachagan the Pious) was a direct relative of the Persian king. Grandmaster 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what does it have to do with Hasan-Jalal?--TigranTheGreat 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Putting "Mongol Empire" for the country makes it sound like HJ were the ruling dinasty of the empire. The most accurate one is Khachin princiapility--the readers can go to that article and judge for themselves what was the nature of that principality.--TigranTheGreat 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But that was not a country either. All those small principalities were parts of larger states. And I'm removing the reference to Arranshahs and other kings of Albania until we can establish the connection of this family with them. Grandmaster 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A principality is a state. It can be a vassal state, but it is a state--it has its dinasty, governing structure etc. It was a vassal of several states throughout its history, and the readers can refer to the article to find out which ones.--TigranTheGreat 12:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not an independent state, I suggest to remove the country line from the table and end this dispute. Grandmaster 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This map just downloaded by me shows that, "House of Hasan Jalalyan"  was not a state but rather ordinary part/region under Ilkhanats of Mongols. --Ulvi I. 05:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this map does not show Hasan-Jalal principality as a sovereign state, which it never was. Another proof to what I was saying. Thanks for the valuable info, Ulvi. Grandmaster 05:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Albania under Mihranids was part of Arab Caliphate. Yet if you created an article on Mihranids, I am sure you would put "Albania" instead of "Arab Caliphate" for the country. Same with here. The "country" or "state" means what the dynasty ruled.--TigranTheGreat 08:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to assume what I would do. Sure the later rulers of Mihranid dynasty were subjected to Arabs, and Albania was part of the caliphate. I never denied this fact. In this particular case Hasan-Jalal’s principality was not an independent state, and cannot be listed as such. I propose to remove the country field from the table to resolve this issue. Grandmaster 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree, "country" and "state" are two different things. "Independent state" or "independent dynasty" are even more diferent things. --Ulvi I. 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, originally they included Armenia as a country in the table, while Karabakh was geographically part of the region called Arran, or Albania. This field causes too much controversy, so it would be better to remove it completely. Grandmaster 09:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Marshall, Aranshahs being Armenian is not sourced, stop edit warring. Grandmaster 09:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. The article Arranshahs (or Yerranshahiks) in the SAE (published in 1976, no less) describes it as an Armenian family and this is reiterated in the source in the article entry on Hasan Jalal and the family in the SAE (1980).--MarshallBagramyan 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I merely assumed that you were a logical and honest editor (i.e. you would apply the most logical choice to both articles). Correct me if I was mistaken. Now, would you put "Arabic Caliphate," or better yet, "Armina" for the house of Mihranids? Because Albania was part of the province of "Armina."--TigranTheGreat 13:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mihranids should go under Caucasian Albania and Arab Caliphate in the country field. And SAE is not a third party source. Arranshahs were Arsacids and Mihranids, both Parthian. How come they are Armenian? Grandmaster 06:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I quoted above a passage from Kalankatuatsi/Daskhurantsi about the Albanian kings, here’s a commentary on it by Hewsen:


 * This chapter is brief but it contains two king lists. The one, largely legendary, is borrowed from Movses Xorenaci and lists the kings of Armenia from the time of Japheth to Tigranes I (c. 149-c. 123 B.c.), the other, essentially factual, though from an unknown source, lists the last ten Arsacid kings of Albania from Urnayr at the beginning of the fourth century to Vachagan the Pious at the end of the fifth.


 * Robert H. Hewsen. On the Chronology of Movses Dasxuranci. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 27, No. 1. (1964), pp. 151-156.


 * As you can see, the Arranshahs were Parthian, thus the Persian/Iranian title. I suggest we stick to reliable third party scholarly sources, as is required by the rules. I don't think you would be happy if I start editing this article with reference to modern Azerbaijani sources. Grandmaster 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If we should include Albania for the country in Mihranid article, why shouldn't we include Khachin for the "country" in the HS article? Neither dynasty was independent.

And where does Hewsen use the word "Aranshah?" And where does MK say that ARanshahs were Parthian/Persian?--TigranTheGreat 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a key distinction between using Armenian sources such as Ulubabyan and Azerbaijani scholars for the region: what Azerbaijani scholars do is erase the complete existence of Armenians in the region anywhere before 1813-1828, going against logic and all the sources that have since documented their presence in the region. The Khachkar destruction in Nakhchivan article illustrates this precisely where you have Azeri officials claiming that the khachkars are not of Armenian but of Caucasian Albanian origin.

Mamedova and Bunaytov are two other examples who do nothing but embellish the evidence and go on to claim that Hasan Jalal was Albanian, that Gandzasar was Albanian, or that historic Armenia is actually founded somewhere in current day Iraq; in other words, their scholarship falls out of mainstream historical discourse.

Armenian sources, on the other hand, may not be third party, but they are far more credible because they do have have third party support and Western peer-reviewed historians in stark contrast to the unsupported garbage Azeri scholars attempt to pass off as historical fact.--MarshallBagramyan 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please show me how Ulubabian is a "Western peer-reviewed historian". All he does is that he claims that Albania was an Armenian province, that meliks were natives to Karabakh, etc, i.e. tries to prove that the region was always Armenian, going against the facts accepted even by the Armenian sources. If writings of Azeri scholars is "unsupported garbage", so are Ulubabian and other modern Armenian scholars, who are motivated by nationalism and the need to substantiate the Armenian claims to this land. That's why we should abide by the rules and use only third party sources, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Raffi is a 19th century primary source, and so is Mirza Adigezal. 2 primary sources, Armenian and Azerbaijani, confirm that 4 out of 5 meliks were migrants to the region, yet you reject them and replace the info with claims of some Ulubabian, who cannot be taken seriously.


 * Tigran, who were the Armenian Aranshahs? The Arsacids or Mihranids or both? Arranshah is nothing but a title of King of Albania in Persian, so please explain which ruling dynasty of Albania was Armenian. In Shirvan the rulers were called Shirvanshahs, the dynasties changed, but the title remained. And Albania was independent during the reign of Javanshir, so the country of Albania would be appropriate. Grandmaster 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aranshah may have been a title for Mihranids, but it was also the name of an "ancient family"--according to MK. Just like "Caesar" was a title of Roman emperors, and the name of a family to which Julius Caesar belonged to. Now, where does either MK, or Hewsen, say that Aranshahs were either Arsacids, or Persian?--TigranTheGreat 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * MK calls the dynasty preceding the Mihranids Arranshahs, and we know that the dynasty that ruled Albania before Mihranids were Arsacid. Mihranids killed all the members of that dynasty and took their place. Grandmaster 11:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And Arranshah is merely a title according to Iranica, indeed, Arranshah was not a personal name like Caesar. Grandmaster 11:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I never referred to Ulubabyan as a peer-reviewed scholar (rather, it was in reference to George Bournoutian). Regardless of which, his claims do hold far more merit. There's no need for Ulubabyan and others to desperately "substantiate" their work as, in fact, it is the opposite: it is Azerbaijani scholars who attempt to connect the land to the current republic by way of Caucasian Albania. That is why Armenian monasteries and churches in the region are called "Albanian" and khachkars in Nakhichevan are claimed by Azeri officials to be Albanian. It is a systematic attempt to erase any and all traces of an Armenian presence (including the destruction of khachkars); this negates any credibility on part of Azeri scholars. Mamedova herself was unable to present her dissertation for over several years because it just went against all the evidence that stated Armenians had a presence there.

Last time I checked, it was not Ulubabyan or other Armenian scholars who claimed that Armenians "stole" the Caucasian Albanian culture and alphabet by imprinting them on churches. Bunyatov's and Mamedova's theories fall flat in the face of modern scholarly discourse because they are so weakly linked and have little to no corroboration with Western historians. So what is more harder to believe as you say, that Hasan Jalal had extensive, if not wholly, Armenian roots or that Armenians came from Mesapotamia, destroyed the Albanians in the region and purloined their culture, alphabet, and architecture and claimed it as their own as part of a conspiracy spanning over a millennium?

Third, there is no rule on Wikipedia saying that only third-party sources should be used; that is something that you have been propagating for over a year now with little success. Raffi was an Armenian writer, not a historian. If Raffi made some claims about Karabakh that you disagreed with, you would be the first to discount him as a source. Regardless of that, you're being highly selective with the evidence on hand. Raffi wrote that the families from the Jalalyans' family were coming from Karabakh, or neighboring areas - Sevan, Syunik and Utik - not from parts of the greater Caucasus.--MarshallBagramyan 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The logic is simple. If you refer to Ulubabiyan, I have to refer to Ziya Bunyadov. Remember Hewsen in his letter to De Waal did not only blaime Ziya Bunyadov for bad history but also the Armenian historian Mnatsakanian for being selective. So if we are going down, everyone is going down. I cannot trust to Armenian authors in this and we have to fair here. Then this map, which is taken from a book, Atlas historique et culturel de l'Arménie : Proche-Orient et Sud-Caucase du 8e au 20e siècle (Broché) which is co-authored both by third party Eric Van Lauwe and an Armenian Claude Mutafian does not show any independent Kingdom of Hasan Jalalian in given period. No one from opposite side reacted to the map taken from this source, posted by me earlier. --Ulvi I. 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the logic is flawed. Blaming someone for for being selective with evidence is one thing, criticizing a historian who plagiarized a work and called it his own and blatantly distorted facts and evidence to suit his own agenda enters a whole new field. Bunyatov claimed that the first Armenian presence in the region was recorded in the 1820s, ignoring about 3,000 or so years of history. He, nor his ilk, have any credibility in historical discourses.

Hewsen himself has made glaring mistakes in his Atlas of Armenia, so his critique is largely irrelevant.--MarshallBagramyan 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are Wikipedia rules:


 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * Ulubabian is not third party, so he cannot be used. And Ulvi is right, if it is OK to use Armenian nationalistic historians like Ulubabian, it should be OK to use Azeri sources as well. I see no reason for such discrimination of Azerbaijani sources. And it is not only Bunyatov, we can refer to Igrar Aliyev, who is a very well respected scholar internationally. As for Raffi, if Ulubabian is such an authority for you, you will have to agree with what he says about Raffi’s work:


 * Ни для одной из своих книг Раффи не накопил такого огромного и богатого материала, как для книги об армянских меликствах. Книга, которая является глубоким научным исследованием и научной монографией и которая вместе с тем читается как увлекательное эпическое повествование, как «роман» о героической и трагической истории Арцах-Карабаха.


 * Ulubabian claims that Raffi’s book is a profound scientific research. So it should be alright to use it. Grandmaster 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And Ulvi is absolutely right with regard to the map that he presented, it does not show any state of Khachen. It was Mongol Ilkhanid state at the time. Grandmaster 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the difference between the words "should" and "must" since you are clearly and deliberately misinterpreting what it stipulates. We can definitely use Ulubabyan, or to be more accurate, the SAE. Otherwise, your flawed logic would mean that Featured Articles such as the Polish-Soviet war, an article with so much contention between Poles and Russians, would have to be completely rewritten due to its heavy reliance on Polish sources.

I never doubted Raffi's prose, he was an excellent writer. But Ulubabyan's praise of Raffi does not add anything to the fold; just because he praises him doesn't mean that he agrees with everything that Raffi wrote or that Raffi may have gotten his facts wrong here and there. I object to Azeri sources because they attempt to virulently derail Armenian historiography and replace it with pseudo sources and factual distortions; in other words, because they blatantly go against all logic and mainstream historical discourse, they cannot even be considered to be reliable, much less accurate.--MarshallBagramyan 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And you choose the Armenian ones because the say what you like to hear and for that reason refuse to use third party sources? The rules make it clear that we should give preference to third party ones, that have no conflict of interest. As for Raffi, he says the same as Mirza Adigezal, and his work on meliks is a historical essay, based on the info that he collected in Karabakh. Grandmaster 06:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no way that Bagrat Ulubabian can be used as a reliable source for this sort of article. VartanM and others, you may appeal to "Nazism" and the like all you want, but a scholar who happened to be a member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences and the Writers' Union of Armenia cannot be considered a third-party source. We might as well use the works of Azerbaijani scholars who, I assure you, have written a lot about the history of Karabakh, and Hasan-Jalalyans in particular. Parishan 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not dealing with a work that was published after independence but in 1984, long before Glasnost was introduced. Soviet censors never allowed one iota of nationalism to be published until the late 1980s and even the first volume of the SAE, published in 1974, where the entry on Arranshahiks was found stated that the family was Armenian (and even it says that Arranshah meant "rulers of Arran").

Raffi was foremost a writer. He did write on historical topics but he was not a historian by any definition and its time you acknowledge that. You've been awfully selective in who you wish to quote and source to your liking but you're gonna have to do a little bit better than to pass him off as a source that corroborates Mirza Adigezal. --MarshallBagramyan 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ulubabian is clearly reliable, you have to find a better reason than him simply being Armenian. If you bring forward second rate excuses as Bunyatov and Mammedova we can say something wrong with their work not race. Hetoum I 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at you own arguments, Marshall. They are very weak. You say that "Soviet censors never allowed one iota of nationalism to be published until the late 1980s", and yet you accuse Bunyatov and Mamedova of nationalism despite them being published at the same time. Armenian scholars were accused of chauvinism too by third party Western sources, I can provide quotes. They are not any better than Azeri ones. As for Raffi, the same Ulubabian whom you use as a reference praises his work as a "profound scientific research". But even if you are not happy with Raffi, we have Mirza Adigezal bey, who also says that 4 out of 5 Armenian meliks migrated to the region at various times, and he knew better than modern nationalist Ulubabian, as he was native to Karabakh. Primary sources on both sides agree on this fact, yet you remove the references and replace them with claim of modern Armenian scholars, who are known for their conflict of interest in this issue. Grandmaster 06:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, you revert to the version that says "Armenian dynasty of Arranshahs", please explain which dynasty of Arranshahs was Armenian, Arsacid or Mihranid? We know from reliable third party sources that neither of the 2 was Armenian, so why reverting to this version over and over? Grandmaster 11:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Marshall says:


 * I object to Azeri sources because they attempt to virulently derail Armenian historiography and replace it with pseudo sources and factual distortions; in other words, because they blatantly go against all logic and mainstream historical discourse, they cannot even be considered to be reliable, much less accurate.


 * Let’s see what third party scholars have to say about Armenian historians:


 * No less problematic are heavily slanted interpretations of the Urartian kingdom, the first historically attested state in Transcaucasia (ninth to seventh centuries BC). Armenian chauvinists must explain why this state, a worthy adversary of the neo-Assyrian Empire of northern Mesopotamia and one that expanded over much of "historic Armenia," composed its royal cuneiform inscriptions in Urartian, a non Indo-European (i.e., non-Armenian) language, related to Hurrian and ancestral to the Northeastern Caucasian family of languages spoken today by different peoples in Daghestan, Chechenia, and Ingushetia (see Jankowska 1991:231). Reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom, and there is a real sense in which the Armenians are the cultural heirs of Urartu, but an essentialist view of Armenian culture which equates it precisely with the Urartian kingdom cannot be sustained.


 * One must distinguish between popular and professional Armenian interpretations of Urartu, the latter being subtler and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. More discriminating professional archaeologists, who may accept the reasonable theory that the ethnogenesis or formation of Armenian culture occurred during post-Urartian Achaemenid times, extol the might of the Urartians and see them exercising political control over most of eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and Transcaucasia; in this respect they remain the direct precursors of the Armenian kingdom under Tigran II.


 * Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). ISBN: 0521558395


 * Armenian historians also have a reputation for twisting facts with the sole purpose of proving, as the above source says, that "Armenians always lived in and controlled "historic Armenia"" or, in this particular case, Nagorno-Karabakh. So we should either use third party source or use both Armenian and Azerbaijani sources. Grandmaster 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GM, your arguments weaken post by post. You have a habit of misquoting sources and being selective on which ones you like the best and which ones must be rejected. Your mincing of Raffi's words remains a glaring example of cherry picking the facts at its best.

This critique remains a poor (and irrelevant) one no matter how you spin this. The consensus among historians is that the Urartians and the Armenians' history are very intimately related. Even third party sources agree to this: "Urartu: ancient kingdom of Armenia, centered about Lake Van in present-day E Turkey." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, and are included as part of the history of the ancient kingdom of Armenia The Kingdom of Armenia, Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States pp. 4ff, even the Great Soviet Encyclopedia acknowledged the fact that the oldest historical territory in the Soviet Union was in the Armenia SSR.

Ulubabyan's work was grounded in historical facts in the first place! it did not contradict what had been known about the region for centuries. It is not a rarity to have imperfect historians and Azerbaijani scholars would be accepted if they did not deliberately erase the existence of Armenians entirely from the region. Read Bunyatov's works or go on to any Azerbaijani website and they will repeat the claims that the oldest Armenians in Karabakh were settled in from the 1820s, and understanding his bogus claims can best be seen of byparaphrasing what he said in his 1988 "Why Sumgait" article, "so how can Armenians have any possible historical claim to Karabakh?"

If you are a third party historian, how can you possible not scrutinize that sentence and not fall off your chair from laughter because of how ridiculous it sounds? Bunyatov and his ilk have been just repeating the same thing, it is standard protocol to switch every word from "Armenian to "Albanian", the Khachkars in Nakhichevan? those are Albanian! and even if they were Armenian, it was much better to destroy and vandalize them so no one else could know of their true origins; the church in Nij in Azerbaijan with the Armenian writing? scraped off, of course! because the Udis felt it was best to adopt the rabid vilification of Armenians in Azerbaijan.

No GM, it is Azerbaijan's scholars whose authority in history in this region is in question. Armenian historians may not be perfect, there is plenty even I would criticize of them than what Kohl has highlighted, but they have had more scholarly work completed and cited by third party sources in the region long before the Soviet era (and even without the the Soviet censors in works published outside of the USSR); their credibility is not in jeopardy here. --MarshallBagramyan 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, here is your reply to me:


 * MK calls the dynasty preceding the Mihranids Arranshahs, and we know that the dynasty that ruled Albania before Mihranids were Arsacid. Mihranids killed all the members of that dynasty and took their place.

Where does MK state that the Arranshah dynasty preceded Mihranids? Mind you, they did follow Mihranids, and they did rule Albania (under Armenian Sahl-Smbatyan, as MK states). But where does he say taht they preceded Mihranids as kings of Albania?--TigranTheGreat 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Check above, Eupator quoted MK as saying that Mihranids wanted to kill the family of Arranshahs. As for Sahl, there are different opinions about his origin. Now Marshall, there's no way you can discard Azeri sources and use Armenian ones. Armenian sources don't have a good reputation either. In fact, Kohl is quite critical of both, and what I quoted about Armenian scholars is just a small part of what is written. I cannot quote the whole chapter dedicated to them. There's plenty of interesting info about how Armenian scholars distorted sources to prove that the land inhabited now by Armenians always belonged to them. The conclusion that Kohl makes is not very flattering to either Azeri or Armenian scholars: "Ironically, chauvinistic Azeri and Armenian archaeologists alike share a need to see their people as always present in the greater eastern Anatolian/northwest Iranian/Transcaucasian region". That's why I suggest to abide by the rules and use third party sources. Like it or not, that's what the rules require. Grandmaster 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Mihranids killed Arranshahiks, GM. But, again, where does MK say that Aranshahiks were kings of Albania before Mihranids?

By the way, rules never state that we should only use third party sources.--TigranTheGreat 16:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That was Eupator's claim. And if they called themselves Kings of Albania, they had a reason to do so. Anyway, which Aranshahs in your opinion were Armenian?


 * As for the rules, check for yourself: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Grandmaster 04:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should does not mean must :). The WWII article is not based on Swiss material. It is a shame you refer to this rule incorrectly every time you see something you do not agree to and cannot find proper resources to counter. Further, since your claims are opposite to commonly held ideas (your claims are exceptional) YOU should be the one to find exceptional sources.Hetoum I 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Hetoum. A further point--GM, where exactly does that sentence contain the phrase "third party source?" Help us find it please.

GM, about Aranshahs--your claim that pre-Mihranid Aranshahiks were Persian rests on the assumption that they ruled Albania. Your argument is "Hewsen says pre-Mihranid rulers of Albania were Arsacid." So, I must ask you again, where does MK, or any of your sources, say that pre-Mihranid Aranshahiks ruled Albania? Eupator and his statements are not a source.

As for which Aranshahs were Armenian--there was only one family of Aranshahiks, and MK clearly states that they were an ancient Haykazean family, i.e. Armenians.--TigranTheGreat 03:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So you say that the family that called itself Kings of Albania were actually not kings of Albania? Why would they call themselves that then? As for the rules, if some articles do not observe them it does not mean that we should do the same. Otherwise I can start using Azeri sources on this one, I see no reason why not to. I don't see that this article relies on "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as the rules require. And do not remove the tag until the dispute is resoved, that's against the rules. Grandmaster 05:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The pre-Mihranid Arranshahs were the rulers of Albania:


 * In this passage, Sahl i Smbatean, who is called Eranshahik at 111, 19,l is said to be of 'the Zaimirhakan family of kings'. This indicates that Sahl was the descendant of the Zaimirh Eranshahik who was the sole survivor of the Eranshahik family when they were treacherously exterminated by Vardan K'aj of the Mihrakan dynasty and was spared only because he was the husband of one of the daughters of Vardan's family.


 * Whether Sahl was indeed related to this dynasty is subject to dispute:


 * One cannot exclude the possibility, however, of this eminently respectable Albanian genealogy having been falsely assumed by Sahl or invented by the historian or his source in an attempt to legitimize Sahl's claim to the throne of Albania.


 * C. J. F. Dowsett. A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), pp. 456-468


 * Note that Dowsett talks about "Albanian genealogy", not "Armenian genealogy", when refering to relations of Sahl with pre-Mihranid dynasty. Grandmaster 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Very good work, Grandmaster. Indeed, the pre-Mihranid Aranshahiks were from a "royal family," and they ruled Albania, as MK states (plus your new source).

One problem remains though. Where does Hewsen, or any of your sources, state that these pre-Mihranid Aranshahik kings of Albania were Arsacid?--TigranTheGreat 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There were no other kings after Vachagan. He was the last king of pre-Mihranid dynasty. The sources make that clear. Grandmaster 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster, I congratulate that you have JSTOR, very interesting reference. The reference to "Albanian" geneology is unclear. Does he mean people of Aluank's geneology? Dynasty of people in the regions? He is ok source, but doesn't explain or clear himself. A vague reference. We need something stronger. You are doing interpreting.Hetoum I 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear and unambiguous. Albanian, not Armenian. Grandmaster 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster, which sources state that there were no Albanian kings after Vachagan?--TigranTheGreat 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any that say there were kings after Vachagan? Movses does not mention any, his list finishes with Vachagan and then moves on to Mihranids. The article in Iranica also jumps from Vachagan to Mihranids and says nothing about "Armenian Aranshahiks". I mean, how come that there are no neutral sources to support the claims of Ulubabian? There are plenty of third party sources on the topic, but none of them supports the claims included in the article. Grandmaster 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no neutral sources supporting your claim, i.e. that Aranshahiks were Arsacid, or Persian, or Parthian.

As to kings after Vachagan, MK states that Mihranids killed Aranshahiks (except Zarmihr), and thus they became rulers of Albania. Later, he refers to the "royal family of Zarmihr." Mihranids came to power in late 500's. Vachagan ruled in 400's. Obviosly, the "royal family of Zarmihr" ruled Albania before Mihranids.--TigranTheGreat 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you check another Iranica article on Albania, it also jumps from ancient ruling dynasty to Mihranids:


 * Towards the end of the 5th century, the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania seems to have died out, and in the later 6th century and at the time of the Arab invasions some decades after then, Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihran family, who claimed descent from the Sasanians but were probably of Parthian origin.


 * Vachagan ruled in the late 5th century, so ancient ruling dynasty were Arsacids. No one is mentioned in between, as the country was without a king, disintegrated and ruled by various minor princes, relatives of the ancient ruling house. Mihranids killed almost all of them and became the rulers of the country. Now the current version of the article says that all Arranshahs were Armenian, which is not true, as we know that Mihranids were of Parthian/Persian origin, and the old ruling dynasty were also Parthian Arsacids. If you think that there was another Armenian dynasty in between of those 2, you need to support your claim with reliable third party references. Grandmaster 06:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your source (Iranica) says nothing about Aranshahiks being Arsacid, or Parthian, or Persian. Are you saying that you have no source to support your claim (i.e. that Aranshahiks were Arsacid, or Parthian, or Persian). If you do not, then you can't make that claim.--TigranTheGreat 08:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Check Hewsen:


 * This chapter is brief but it contains two king lists. The one, largely legendary, is borrowed from Movses Xorenaci and lists the kings of Armenia from the time of Japheth to Tigranes I (c. 149-c. 123 B.c.), the other, essentially factual, though from an unknown source, lists the last ten Arsacid kings of Albania from Urnayr at the beginning of the fourth century to Vachagan the Pious at the end of the fifth.


 * So the kings from Urnayr to Vachagan were Arsacid. After Vachagan the monarchy in Albania was abolished, and the country was ruled by Persian marzpans. See the following source:


 * С установлением иранского господства значение аристократии усиливается, а царская власть ещё больше слабеет. В середине V в. она была окончательно уничтожена, и страной стали управлять персидские наместники.


 * And after that Mihranids restored the monarchy. We have no sources to support your claim that there were any other dynasties. We have Arsacid kings and Mihranid kings. Neither of them were Armenian. Grandmaster 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed that there were other dynasties. My sole claim is that you have no evidence to support your claim--i.e. that Aranshahiks were Arsacid, Persian, or Parthian. And I have so far supported my claim--none of your sources state that the family of Aranshahiks were Arsacid.

Let's look at your sources. Hewsen says Vachagan was Aranshahik. Nothing about Aranshahiks being Arsacid.

Your Russian source says that the royal power ended in mid 400's. We already know that--MK states that after Vache (Vachagan's brother), who ruled during the Armenian rebelion (in 451), Albania was left without a king for 30 years. And after 30 years, Vachagan was king. This was the end of 400's. Again, not a word about Aranshahiks being Arsacid.

Your Iranica source states that the ancient dynasty of Albania died out in late 400's. Again, not a single word about Aranshahiks being Arsacid.

So, do you have any source saying that they were Arsacid? If not, you need to abandon that claim of yours.--TigranTheGreat 11:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only third party source about Arranshahs that we have is this article in Iranica:


 * Towards the end of the 5th century, the ancient ruling dynasty of Albania seems to have died out, and in the later 6th century and at the time of the Arab invasions some decades after then, Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihran family, who claimed descent from the Sasanians but were probably of Parthian origin. Their most famous representatives in the 7th century were Varaz-Grigor, his son Juansher (Persian Javanshir) and Varaz-Trdat I. The military exploits of the latter two potentates in the period of the first Arab invasions of Armenia and Arran figure prominently in the 2nd book of Movses Dasxuranci's chronicle. These princes bore the Persian title of Arranshah (in certain of the Arabic sources corruptly written as Liranshah), Armenian Eranshahik or Aranshahik.


 * So Mihranids were Arranshahs and they were Parthian/Persian. We have no sources to attest that there were any other Arranshahs, we know that before Mihranids Albania was ruled by Arsacids, and after them by Persian governors. So who were Armenian Arranshahs? Did they have a name? The current version of the article, to which Marshall keeps reverting the article, claims that all Arranshahs were Armenian. The above source shows that they were not. So we need to specify who those Armenian Arranshahs were. Grandmaster 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What we need first is to find sources to support your claim that the family of Aranshahiks were Arsacid. So far you have provided none. The above Iranica source states that the princes of the family of Mihranids had the title Aranshahik. It says nothing about the ethnicity of the family of Aranshahiks. Nor does it state that such family did not exist.

So, where is the source stating that the family of Aranshahiks were Arsacid?--TigranTheGreat 13:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Arranshah simply means "King of Albania" in Persian. It is not a name, it is a title. See:


 * Albania was ruled by princes of the Mihran family, who claimed descent from the Sasanians but were probably of Parthian origin. ... These princes bore the Persian title of Arranshah (in certain of the Arabic sources corruptly written as Liranshah), Armenian Eranshahik or Aranshahik.


 * Do you need a proof that Arsacids were kings of Albania? See Hewsen. Any king of Albania was Arranshah. (Arran = Albania, shah = king in Persian). As for Mihranids, who also bore this title, they were either Persian or Parthian. There was no other dynasty in between these 2 dynasties. Where’s is the source that Arranshahs, i.e. kings of Albania, were Armenian? Please quote. The current version of the article says that all Arranshahs, i.e. kings of Albania, were Armenian, so it is up to those who support this statement to provide reliable sources to back up this claim. Grandmaster 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your source merely states that Mihranyans bore the title Arranshah. And sure, Arranshah means king of Aran. However, where does your source state that there was no family named Arranshah?--TigranTheGreat 13:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And where is the source that says Arranshah was a family name? Arranshah was a title, meaning king of Albania. So far you provided no quotes to support your position. Grandmaster 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All sources say that Arranshah was a title. Minorsky: The title Eranshahik, under which the historian of Albania (Kalankatuatsi) presents him in this passage, is probably given him in anticipation, etc. Grandmaster 06:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided many quotes stating that Aranshahiks were a family. MK states so multiple times:

Book 1, Ch. 27: Впоследствии, спустя длительное время, один из знатных людей – князь Вараз-Перож из рода Араншаhиков – решил обновить Старую Церковь

... prince Varaz-Perozh from the family of Aranshahiks..

Book 2, Ch, 17: ''Этот затаил в своем сердце [желание] погубить древний род hАйказеан – Ераншаhиков, о которых в сей книге мы писали выше. .. Он [велел] отрубить головы шестидесяти мужам, оставив из них лишь одного – Зармиhра Ераншаhика, зятя своего.''

He wanted to kill the ancient Armenian (haykazyan) family of Aranshahiks ..He decapitated 60 men, leaving only one-- Zarmihr Aranshahik.

--TigranTheGreat 08:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which does not mean it was a family name, it only means that they were from princely dynasty. See above sources, Arranshah was a title. If I say that someone was from the family of Emperors, that would not mean that Emperor is a family name, would it? Grandmaster 09:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Haykazyan simply means descendant of Hayk, but whether Hayk was real or imaginary person is a subject to dispute. Grandmaster 09:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And Varaz-Perozh was Mihranid, brother of Javanshir. Their family bore the title of Arranshahs, but they were Persian. Grandmaster 09:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"kill the ancient family of Aranshahiks" has only one meaning-- "kill an ancient family whose name is Aranshahik." If you said "he wants to kill the ancient family of Emperors," it would either mean that "Emperor" was a family name, or that phrase would not make sense. It's so obvious, you shouldn't even be making that argument.--TigranTheGreat 11:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Did Mihranid Varaz-Perozh also have a family name of Arranshah or that was his title? Grandmaster 11:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Prince Varaz-Perozh mentioned in my quote is clearly referred to "from the family of Aranshahiks." We have no indication that he was the same Varaz-Perozh as Jvanshir's brother. Several people in the region had the same name, you know. The text mentions several Smbat's, for example--Sahl's father, and the Armenian Bagratid king Smbat. So, just became Book 1 and Book 2 each mention the name Varaz-Perozh, does not mean they are the same person.

Another way to think of this is this. The text says that Varaz-Whatever killed "Зармиhра Ераншаhика" If Aranshahik was not Zarmihr's family name, but merely a title meaning "king of Albania", the text would be "Ераншаhика Зармиhра", i.e. "Aranshahik (king of Albania) Zarmihr." "Зармиhра Ераншаhика" (i.e. "Zarmihr Aranshahik") unambiguously means someone whose first name is Zarmihr, and whose last name (or family name) is Aranshahik. You would say "President Bush," not "Bush President." --TigranTheGreat 11:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Varaz-Perozh was from Mihranid family. There was no such name in previous dynasty. Here's the list of kings in MK book:


 * Царей [в Алуанке] от Вачагана Храброго до Вачагана Благочестивого, имена которых мы перечислили выше, было десять. Из них один только Вачаган Благочестивый построил церквей в Восточном [крае] по числу дней в году. После его смерти их род пришел в упадок. В нахарарстве утвердился род Михра из Сасанидов, переселившегося из Персии. Вот их имена по порядку от отца к сыну – Михр, Армаэл, Вард, Вардан Храбрый, уверовавший в Христа (а не тот, кто построил крепость Гардмана), его сын Вард. Вард родил Вараз-Григора, первого [в этом роду] князя Алуанка. Он родил четырех сыновей – Вараз-Перожа, Джуаншера, Иезут-Хосрова и Варазмана. Из них мы перечислим по порядку имена [потомков] старшего сына, известных у армян [остальных же пропустим]. Вот они: Вараз-Перож, Вараз-Трдат, Вардан, Нерсех Дыжндак, последний приказывал рвать волосы на головах [верующих] людей, а на ноги им надевать железные оковы, вследствие чего многие умерли от зноя и удушья.


 * As you can see, he mentions ten kings of Arsacid dynasty, then he says that their dynasty declined after the death of Vachagan, and the country was ruled by Persian Mihranid family. MK also mentions that Mihranids had intermarried with Armenian princes, but that does not make Mihranids Armenian, as they had close family ties with Persian rulers and even Khazars, as Javanshir married Khazar princess, which means that later Mihranids had even Turkic blood. --Grandmaster 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no indication that prince Varaz-Perozh, who rebuilt the church of Gis in Book 1, is the same Varaz-Perozh mentioned in your quote from Book 3. People can have the same name. In fact, in the text we have several Vardans, several Vachagans, several Vaches. There is no reason to assume that there was only one Varaz-Perozh.--TigranTheGreat 15:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But he could be Mihranid as well, right? I see no person with such a name mentioned in the text other than Mihranids. As you can see, according to MK, Albania was ruled by Arsacid dynasty, and then by Mihranids. There was no other dynasty in between. So which one of them was Armenian? And we know that Arranshah was a title, we have sources to attest to that, but do you have a source to support the statement that Arranshah was a family name? MK does not say so, it is your interpretation of the primary source, which we are not supposed to do. Grandmaster 19:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he couldn't be Mihranid, because MK clearly states "Prince Varaz-Perozh from the family of Aranshahiks." MK clearly states when a person is from a family of Aranshahiks, and when a person is from the family of Mihranids. For example, when talking about Varaz-Trdat, he says "Этот Вараз-Трдат был из рода Миhракан"--i.e. VT was from the family Mihrakan. (Book 3, Ch 20). Another place: "Вардан Храбрый из рода Миhрана" -- Vardan was from the family of Mihran. "Ancient family of Aranshahiks" is what it is--an ancient family whose name is Aranshahiks. It's not an interpretation, it's black on white in the text by Kaghankatvatsi. So, we can use it in Wiki.

Your claim, however, that Varaz-Perozh Aranshahik was Varaz Perozh Mihranid, is an interpretation since nowhere does MK equate the two (and they are mentioned in different books, mind you). So, we cannot use your claim in the article, without any indication that those were the same people. If you had MK say, for example, that "Jvanshir's brother Varaz-Perozh rebuilt the church of Gis," than we would know that those were the same people, and it would not be an interpretation. --TigranTheGreat 03:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And who in your opinion was this Arranshah, who fought in the 7th century on the side of Arabs against Khazars:


 * А спустя еще три года пришел Мслиман, разрушил Дарбанд и вышел к хазирам, но, не получив ниоткуда помощи, вернулся, оставив там войска в полном снаряжении и даже наложниц [своих]. А патрику Вачагану Ераншаhику, князю Алуанка, мужу отважному и лучнику искусному, с войском поручил защищать свой тыл, и хазиры, преследующие [Мслимана] были разгромлены им и обратились в бегство.


 * The old dynasty was by that time exterminated by Mihranids, so this person could only be Mihranid. Grandmaster 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So far you have not presented any secondary source to support the claim that Arranshah was a family name, and not the title. When MK says “ancient family of Arranshahs”, it simply means “ancient family of kings of Albania”. MK can be interpreted many ways, but we are not supposed to make our own interpretations of primary sources. I quoted at least 2 secondary sources to prove that Arranshah was a title. In fact, even the meaning of the word (i.e. king of Albania) implies that it was a title, and not a family name. So please find a scholarly interpretation of MK, on the level of Minorsky and Iranica. Grandmaster 06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Vachagan Eranshahik was from the family of Eranshahiks. Mihranids had never completely exterminated Eranshahiks, they left Zarmihr Eranshahik alive. So, without proof that Vachagan Eranshahik was Mihranyan, you have no basis to dispute the fact that Eranshahik was also a name of a family.

Your 2 sources merely say that Mihranids bore the title of Aranshah. They never state that Aranshahiks were not a family (in fact, they were, as stated by MK). So, neither Minorsky nor Iranica refutes the fact that it was a name of a family, in addition to being a title.

Your argument "Aranshah meant king of Aran" fails as well, since names often have some meaning. It does not mean that they are not names, but merely titles.

MK clearly says "He wanted to kill the ancient family of Arasnahiks." He also clearly states "Prince Varaz Perozh from the family of Aranshahiks rebuilt the church of Gis." Your proposed sentence would make no sense: "He wanted to kill the ancient family of kings of Albania," and "Prince Varaz Perozh from the family of kings of Albania rebuilt the church" would simply make no sense, unless the phrase "kings of Albania" were the name of the family. And the phrase "Zarmihr Aranshahik" and "Vachagan Aranshahik" would make no sense if Aranshahik was not a family name. When a statement in a source makes no sense other than what the statement actually states, then it's not open to interpretation. It's not my interpretation, the phrase "family of Aranshahiks" is used in the source, and we can use it in the article.--TigranTheGreat 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is your interpretation of a primary source, which we are not supposed to do. Do you have any reliable secondary source that gives the same interpretation as you? Grandmaster 09:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to use primary sources, not just secondary ones. It's not my interpretation, the text states "family of Aranshahiks"--and we can use that phrase. The rules allow to use what the source states. --TigranTheGreat 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can quote the primary source, but not interpret it. We can refer to "family of Aranshahs" and explain that the name means "king of Albania" in Persian. But there's no evidence of existence of any non-royal family of Arranshahs from any third party source. And also, if Arranshahs were not kings, then Hasan-Jalalids were not related with kings of Albania, correct? Grandmaster 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

According to MK, Zarmihr was Eranshahik (Book 2). He was also from a "royal family" (Book 3). Varaz Perozh was Aranshahik, but he was merely a prince (Book 1). Vachagan, "prince of Albania," is Aranshahik, according to MK. So, the "family of Aranshahiks" were both kings and princes. --TigranTheGreat 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, Arranshahs were kings and the royal family. But again, how do you know they were Armenian? You have no third party sources to support this claim. And again, kings and the royal family had to belong to a certain dynasty, which dynasty was Armenian? Grandmaster 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Movses Kaghankatvatsi, Book 2, Ch, 17: ''Этот затаил в своем сердце [желание] погубить древний род hАйказеан – Ераншаhиков, о которых в сей книге мы писали выше. .. Он [велел] отрубить головы шестидесяти мужам, оставив из них лишь одного – Зармиhра Ераншаhика, зятя своего.''

Bla bla bla ... the ancient Haykazyan (Haykid) family of Eranshahiks ... bla bla bla.

"Haykazyan" means, as you agreed, descendant of Hayk. By definition, any descendant of Hayk is Armenian. Hayk, in the medieval Armenian historigraphy, is the forather of all Armenians:

Movses Khorenatsi: Book 1, Ch 7: "О Беле, современником которого был предок наш Хайк, пове­ствуют многие и многообразно"

"... our forefather Hayk..."

Ch. 11: "Страна же наша, по имени нашего предка, называется Хайкh"

Our country, after the name of our forefather, is called Hayq.

Chapter 12: "Таким был Хайк, сын Торгома, сына Тираса, сына Гамера, сына Иафета, предок армян, и таковы — его род и потомки и стра­на их обитания. С этих пор, говорит он, начали (они) размножать­ся и заполнять страну."

Hayk... forefather of Armenians ... his family and descendants and the country of their habitatoin. Since then, they multiplied and filled the country.

Khorenatsi: Chapter 20: "... Анушавана Сосанвера. Ибо он был, согласно обрядам, посвящен платанам Араманеака, что в Армавире; шелест и направление движения их листвы при слабом или сильном дуновении воздуха долгое время служили предметом гадания в стране Хайкидов"

[Talks about the religious holy trees in Armenian capital Armavir] "it was tool of prophecy in the country of Haykids"

Hayks descendants, Haykids, Haykazyans, were Armenians. And the country of Haykids/Haykazyans/descendants of Hayk was Armenia.

Here are additional indications that Aranshahiks were Armenian:

MK, book 3, ch 23: "Проверив, мы доподлинно узнали, что род Миhрана породнился сватовством с армянскими мужами, чтобы в результате родства этого совместно властвовать над Восточным краем Алуанком."

Mihranids intermarried with Armenian men, in order, as a result of such relationship, to jointly rule over the Eastern land of Aghvank.

So, the pre-Mihranid rulers of Albania (i.e. Aranshahiks), were, as stated above, Armenians. Mihranids intermarried with them to lay claims to Albania (or rather, the "Eastern land of Aghvank").

Here is another indication that Mihranids ruled over an Armenian land, and were themselves Armenianized:

Chapter 23: "Он родил четырех сыновей – Вараз-Перожа, Джуаншера, Иезут-Хосрова и Варазмана. Из них мы перечислим по порядку имена [потомков] старшего сына, известных у армян"

Varaz-Grigor had 4 sons .... Of them, we will list those descendants of the elder son that are known among Armenians.

So, Mihranids functioned in an Armenian environment, married with Armenian family (Aranshaiks), were adopted by their Armenian community over which they ruled, and themselves were Armenianized.--TigranTheGreat 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * None of this proves that Arranshahs were Armenian. Hayk was not a real person, but a legendary figure. If some of Albanian kings claimed a descent from him, it does not mean that they were indeed related. Mihranids intermarried with Armenians, but they also intermarried with Persians and even Khazars. That does not make them Armenian either. And MK lists descendants of the elder son that were known among Armenians, how does it prove that they were Armenian? I mean, none of these quotes contains a line: Arranshahs were Armenian. It is just your personal interpretations. We know the origin of both dynasties mentioned by MK, one was Arshakid, the other was Mihranid. Grandmaster 05:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If MK considers someone a descendant of Hayk, he considers him as being an Armenian. Hayk, legendary or real, was considered the forefather of Armenians. Descendant of Hayk is Armenian.

Mihranids didn't intermarry with Khazars to jointly rule over Albania. They intermarried with Armenians to jointly rule over Albania. Which means Armenians were rulers of Albania.--TigranTheGreat 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, that's your interpretation. The origin of kings of Albania is very well known. Back to edit, the article says "and the 5th century Armenian dynasty of the Arranshahs", but there was no such dynasty. Albania was ruled by Arsacid dynasty in the 5th century, it is a verifiable fact, and they were not Armenian, they were Partian. I suggest we either remove or change that line to make the article factually accurate. Grandmaster 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no interpretation, the source clearly states that Aranshahiks were Haykazyan (Haykid/Hayk's descendant), and Hayk's descendant is Armenian.

We can substitute the "5th" century with "medieval."--TigranTheGreat 22:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How Partians could be descendants of Hayk in terms of being Armenian? Hayk was not a real person, so they could not be his descendants, and there's no third party secondary source that considers Albanian kings to be Armenian. Grandmaster 07:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another proof to what I said before. Marshall misquoted de Waal, who says nothing about any “Armenian Arranshahs”. De Waal consulted with Robert Hewsen about the ancestry of Hasan-Jalal, and Hewsen said the following:


 * [Hasan-Jalal's] descent can be traced back to the fourth century and involves the following houses: In the male line, (1) the princes (who later became kings) of Siunik. Through various princesses, who married his ancestors, Hasan-Jalal was descended from (2) the kings of Armenia or the Bagratuni dynasty, centered at Ani; (3) the Armenian kings of Vaspurakan of the Artsuni dynasty, centered in the region of Van; 4) the princes of Gardman; (5) the Sassanid dynasty of Persia, and (6) the Arsacids, the second royal house of Albania, itself a branch of the kings of ancient Parthia.


 * As one can see, there were no Armenian Arranshahs, kings of Albania were of Partian origin. I think this puts an end to the dispute. So far I have seen no reliable third party source to support the claim that the royal dynasty of Albania was Armenian. On the contrary, all reliable sources support Partian and Persian origin of the ruling dynasties of Albania. I added the accurate quote from de Waal/Hewsen to the article, please do not remove it. --Grandmaster 11:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Hasan-Jalal himself was clearly of mixed ancestry, which included Armenian, Albanian, Partian and Persian roots. --Grandmaster 11:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the conflict between you two is that both of you are mixing Arranshah and the Eransahik. The first one is a title, the second one is a family. Tigran is right on the family of Eransahik, Grandmaster is right on the title of Arranshah. But not entirly, because Sahl i Smbadean was claiming to be from the family of Zarmirhakan king (Zarmirh Eransahik, sole surviver). During those years, I think there was left of Caucasian Albania nothing other than its name, it was already Armenized. So attempting to analyze on wherever or not they were Armenian or Caucasian Albanian is a none-issue, since even the trone of Albania was claimed by Armenian descendence. Anatolmethanol 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is that Zarmihr was from the Parthian Arsacid dynasty of Albania, and Zarmihr is an Iranian name. It was claimed by some editors here that Hasan-Jalal’s family was related to some Armenian Arranshahs, but I was very upset to find out that the source (de Waal/Hewsen) was quoted selectively and the part about relations between Hasan-Jalal and Arsacid dynasty of Albania was omitted. I don’t think that this is a nice thing to do, if someone quotes a source, the quote should be accurate and nothing should be omitted, even if it does not support your position. Please see my above post for the full quote from Hewsen. --Grandmaster 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was nothing left of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty of Albania in those years. Arsacid Armenia has Armenized what was left of any Parthian origine. Even during Artashes III period, there was nothing Parthian in Artashes. We'll susbstitute anything Parthian only if we susbtain some genetic origine. Artashes III died in 428, and already nothing Parthian was left of the dynasty, I fail to see what if anything remained centuries later. The Cambridge ancient history places the fall of Arsacid dynasties in Albania about the same period, maybe a little more, like the end of the fifth century. Like Dowsett stat, the genealogy claim might have been to give legimicy on the trone of Albania. In any case, during Jalalyan period, it was already significantly Armenized and those requesting or assuming the trone were Armenian. I don't get to understand what the point of dispute is. Can you clarify? Anatolmethanol 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This dispute is actually resolved. It was caused by inappropriate use of sources about the origins of Hasan-Jalal. I found the accurate quote and included it in the article. Albanian Arsacids, same as Armenian and Georgian ones, were relatives of the Parthian Arsacids. Hasan-Jalal was related to them, as well as to other ruling dynasties in the region. He himself was of mixed origin, and had Albanian, Armenian and Persian/Parthian ancestry. Grandmaster 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one to notice the quote from 'Grandmaster' about the paternal line of Jalalyan suggesting to originate from Robert H. Hewsen, while the reference directs us to De Waals (controversial) book? Is there an explanation or is this some mistake? Also on another note I can't believe people just refer to De Waal for historic knowledge while he is anything but an historian. He can't be a primary source of historic knowledge. Being criticized by many he is well known for having a partial stance on the Karabakh conflict favoring Azerbaijan. I would highly recommend to remove all things coming from him. Or at least be very careful with the phrasing. Because he is no historian quoting him must not elicit the impression of being a primary source. He is a self thought journalist so he either used outside sources or made stuff up. It would suit the validity of the article if people used sources from historians on historic entries.DrGreenthumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.223.227 (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of verifiable info by Marshall
Marshall, do not delete the info about ancestry of Hasan-Jalal. It is verifiable info that should remain in the article. What is your problem with mentioning all the ancestors of this house? And we have unresolved issue about the country where Khachen was located and whether or not 5 meliks of Karabakh were descendants of Hasan-Jalal’s house. Until those issues are resolved, the tags should remain. Grandmaster 06:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And put your arguments here so we will be able to discuss.--Dacy69 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the info about the origins of the dynasty, which was deleted by Marshall and which he failed to discuss here on the talk page. --Grandmaster 07:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh ... it's sad to see such sad and desperate blind reverts. Did you actually see what you were reverting? Balk is a territory in Afghanistan, Baghk is an Armenian region in Artsakh and Syunik. As for list of descendants of Dola, I said to you dear friend, create an Article for this individual and include the data there. Also, why are you randomly including paternal heritage? What about maternal? Heritage claiming trace thousands of years is not exactly relevant. He was also of Zakarid extraction, who were originally Kurds. Can I call this dynasty Kurds too? What point are you trying to make? Assume good faith, and create an article about Dola. Hetoum I 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the same info, deleted by Hetoum. Grandmaster 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Great article!
I really like this article - well done! Merjanov (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Haykaz Vakhtangian?
I want to know more about the alleged real name of Hasan Jalal - Haykaz/Haykazi (Հայկազ?). You may send me a personal message or develop on that topic right here. Merjanov (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasan-Jala... autonomous leader?
The title inknakal (ինքնակալ) was translated "self-ruling or autonomous leader". That seems to be fault. It must be autocrat or absolute sovereign / ruler / monarch. (source: Ժամանակակից հայոց լեզվի բացատրական բառարան, հատոր Բ, էջ 325։"Ինքնակալ - Միահեծան թագավոր՝ որի իրավունքները չեն սահմանափակված"). Vacio (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold
Sorry for the long wait! Overall, a very good read. I really enjoyed it - something different! :) Please leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please move all free images to Commons so other projects can use them (I can help with this if you need)
 * "in what is" --> "in what are" (plural)
 * Origins of the dynasty section should be ==L2==
 * "According to Robert H. Hewsen..." - the following quote is sourced to Thomas de Waal, am I missing something?
 * "and prosperity until the appearance of the Mongols" - might want to say when this was, otherwise it doesn't make as much sense as it could
 * "The image of Hasan-Jalal on the drum of Gandzasar's dome has him sitting cross-legged, which Eastmond remarks was a "predominant device for depicting power at the Seljuq court."" - is this only one man's opinion, or is there generally some idea attached to one sitting cross-legged?
 * "Gandzasar also became home to" - don't start a section with "also"
 * "and the document issued by the khan failed to uphold its promises." - probably needs a reference
 * "however, died on the way as" - I think "as" should be "and", and should have a comma before it
 * External links section goes after refereces
 * Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONSArdeshire Babakan (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that Arsacid dynasty of Albania was different from Mihranids, who succeeded them. See the sources quoted previously. Grandmaster (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Curious why the house is purely Armenian when the last ruler was called Allahverdi II Hasan-Jalalyan, not to mention why the entire dynasty is Hasan. May be Hasan is original Armenian name as well. Seems like related edits evaporated once again. --Brandспойт 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Next time before disrupting a good article with ridiculous tags and posting inflammatory and ultra nationalist language in the talk page do try and read the article first. But i'll help you with that task, look up note 21 for the names.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just read this post of mine, and come back if you need more proofs. --Vacio (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move
Since this article is supposed to be about both Hasan-Jalal Dawla and his dynasty, it would seem logical that the title of the article should be moved to Melik-Hasan-Jalalyan, just like the other four melik families that controlled the region (e.g., Melik-Beglaryan, Melik-Shahnazaryan, etc.) Does anyone have objections to such a move?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. This dynasty emerged in the 13th c. as the senior line of the House of Khachen, while the princes of Karabakh used the title "melik" only in the 16th century. Besides the Hasan-Jalalyans continued to exist as a noble familiy after 1828 when th mdom of Khachen came to an end. Even today there are many peoply both in NK, Am and the Am diaspora who belong to this family. --Vacio (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. They were around long before the title of 'melik' came to be.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 17:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eupator and Vacio. Capasitor (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV of this article?
Hello. How is this NPOV? The Hasan-Jalalyan family was able to maintain its autonomy throughout several centuries of foreign domination of the region by Seljuk Turks, Persians and Mongols as they, as well as the other Armenian princes and meliks of Khachen, saw themselves of holding the last bastion of Armenian independence in the region.[3]

I understand its an Armenian topic/subject, but what is written above is simply not a neutral point of view. If an invader is stronger and wants the region, he gets it, simple as that. Mainting autonomy should be changed in something neutral.

Regards

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not always as simple as that. Some powers, however strong, feel it more prudent to strike deals or make arrangements with minor potentates, not wanting to waste resources and men in reducing fortified positions if, in exchange for autonomy, they receive taxes and loyalty. History abounds with such examples. Even the Armenians in Greater Armenia were typically left alone by the Persians and Arabs, who preferred that the aforementioned arrangement be made. If you have ever been to this region, you'll see why it is so unalluring and inhospitable for invaders.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)