Talk:Tusheti

Discussion
The title photo in this article is misleading. It depics entire Kakheti region on the map of Georgia. Second photo should be the primary one. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The label Tushetis mkhare is also misleading since it suggests that the whole Kakheti mkhare is called Tushetis. Normally when wikipedia has one photo for political divisions and one for historical areas, the two are equivalents. But here, the pictures show a historical region inside its larger political region. And elsewhere in Wikipedia, a mkhare is defined as one of the large political subdivisions. Does it generically mean "region" instead? That would explain a lot of the confusion over how Georgia is divided. And by the way, Alsandro, I think I used one of your creative commons photos for a website of mine. Thanks for sharing.74.65.142.202 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Claim and OR
I just tagged some dubious and un-sourced claim about Kakhetians-a Kartvelian group of people living in Kartl-Kakheti region- as "Nakh" people. This claim is not supported by any scholarly research and is only claimed by some obscure Chechen "historian" in his un-scholarly book "Neistoricheskie Naxi." This claim which is comical at best needs additional scholarly source, otherwise it should be removed from the article based on Wikipedia guideline on Original Research. Amjad Jaimoukia is not a reliable source for such a claim and other well recognized scholars of ethnography of Caucasus are needed to support this preposterous assertion. Moreover there are many un-sourced claims in the article which raise serious questions about its validityIberieli (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, Amjad Jaimoukha is not a Chechen, but a Circassian (more minutely a Kabardin). Second of all, that the Bats are Nakh is not really debated; at least, it is linguistically the case. Culturally, at least from the perspective of Chechens and Ingush being the "main" Nakh, they are really more Georgian. Furthermore, the sources (as you can see) are not only Jaimoukha, but also the "Red Book" (written by an Estonian; it also references the debate over whether Tusheti was originally "Tsova"-i.e. Bats- or "Chagma"-Georgian speaking- Tush). The "citation needed" tags have also been tagged all throughout the section on things that have nothing to do with the origin of the Bats too... I could probably bring Anchabadze's book in (I have it). And why is there citation needed on that the Bats consider themselves Georgians?--Yalens (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Jaimoukha might have a slight bais against Georgia, but I don't really think he is making up stuff to slander Georgia (much the opposite, his book has little to do with Georgia except that it recounts the history of Georgia's now-defunct alliance with the Chechens before the Mongol invasion). You can read it online, you know. --Yalens (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Some comical theories by Circassian "scholar" is not sufficient enough to support the claim that Kakhetians were Nakh speaking people. I also read a lot about ethnography of Caucasus by various scholars and have never come across a clam where Kartvelian group Kakhetians have anything to do with Nakh speaking people. Not only this is a mere speculation but also distortion of historical sources. Please don’t remove the tags for the claism which are not sourced. For most of the claims you need to provide scholarly sources which will support the assumptions which are made in the article, I can also claim many things here. Foer example that Ingush are Georgian group which was assimilated with Nakh speaking people. But Wikipedia is not a place for speculations, mythical theories and distortion of historic and ethnographic facts. So I would like to kindly ask you to provide valid sources and quotes, and afterwards we can remove all the tags after the references are provided.


 * On my part i will insert sources from other scholars where Tush are regarded as one of the oldest Georgian (Kartvelian) mountaineer tribe and have no ethnic affiliation with Nakh speaking but culturally Georgian Bats people or Tsova-Tush. I have heard many idiotic theories offered by Chechens for example which claims that word "Sakartvelo" is a Vainakh word meaning "our backyard" and that Khevsurs, Pshavs and Mokhevians are Vainakhs too. And I'v heard from Georgians many theories on Georgian origins of Ingush and some Chechen teips and so on. I dont want to mention Circassian theories which are no less chauvinistic and illusionary about the origins of Georgians and other peoples of Caucasus. Lets keep this article trash free. Iberieli (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the theory about Sakartvelo meaning "our backyard". Yes, there are quite a couple ridiculous theories I hear from Chechens (the most absurd being that Chechen was spoken by Noah, the Noah of the Arc); however, Chechens and Circassians are no more likely to voice ridiculous theories (or engage in crazy nationalist discussions) than Georgians or any other people. All peoples include those types within their fold, sadly. But in any case, stating that the theories that you do not agree with are "trash" is not really conducive to a good discussion.


 * I'd like to point out that the view that there were Nakh historically in the Transcaucasus is not Chechen chauvinism- because while they are Nakh, they certainly were NOT Chechens. The view is regarded as plausible not only by Chechen historians (actually, if you have noticed, I have not used a single Chechen source here!) but by Circassians, at least one Estonian scholar, and by certain Georgians scholars themselves. I can cite two off the top of my head: Melikishvilli and Gamrekeli, both of which supporting the view that the Dvals (a people now absorbed into modern Georgiandom, and who had been using Georgian as a literary language for quite awhile probably, and like the modern Bats probably thought of themselves as Georgians) were Nakh. Furthermore it is Melikishvilli who claims that the state of Supani/Tsobena was Nakh, and stating that they were ruled by a Nakh tribe called Tsov as a piece of proof (though I haven't read his works directly). Likewise, in his book Jaimoukha makes reference of a historical Georgian scholar named "Vakhushti", apparently in the 18th century, who said in his writings the line about the Kakh which you so dispute. I have not read this Vakhushti's work, though if I could get my hands/computer on it, I would love to. In any case, the origin of the claim that you so dispute- that there is a Nakh component to Kakhetian ancestry- is in fact Georgian and not Circassian or Chechen or whatever. I don't see why you find this so threatening, in any case. And it's pretty hard to see how the belief that there were Nakh speaking peoples in the Transcaucasus is Chechen chauvinism when it is endorsed by many Georgian scholarss (and may I bring up Mroveli's notes on the "return of Gargareans - Nakh gergara or "kindred"- to the Transcaucasus", or have you already seen this?). --Yalens (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add one more thing: that there may have Nakh in Tusheti in Ancient and Medieval Times doesn't exclude the possibility that Georgians (here I mean Georgians speaking Kartvelian languages) couldn't have been there before as well. Just so that that's straight for you. --Yalens (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well thanks a lot for such an extensive answer with references to specific scholars. I appreciate that you take time to explain some of your points. I do have the book by Vakhushti, a Bagratoini Prince who wrote on History of Georgia while living in exile. I might have electronic copy of his book but its in Russian and if you read Russian I can send you his book via email (in case i will find it on my hard-drive). I would not credit Vakhushtis work as scholarly and no one regards his work as ethnographic study. Many parts of his work are based on hearsay rather than research. I have never read and come across in Vakhushti's work that ancient Georgian group of Kakhetians had anything to do with Nakh speaking people. I'm not sure where your Circassian scholar originates his claim. Kakhetians and Karts (Kartlians) are one of the oldest Kartvelian groups which formed the nucleus of the Georgian nation and culture. And none of the scholars both Georgian or Western claim otherwise (Melikishvili, Anchabadze, Igorokva, Javakhishvili, Gordeziani, Allen, Brosset, Lang and so on). I believe you are Circassian yourself and I understand why you elevate Circassian scholar and I dont believe that Circassians are less Chauvinistic than Georgians. Im well aware of Circassian theories regarding Georgians being Persians who settled Caucasus and took away lands from Greater Circassia (which allegedly encompasses almost entire Northern Caucasus, including Abkhazia). But i don't want to venture into argumentation about who is more nationalistic or chauvinistic. All nations of Caucasus share unique perceptions and perspectives about each other which sometimes are devoid of reality and scholarship and are simply based on ignorance and intolerance. I respect and admire Circassians, love their folklore and support the recognition of their Genocide.


 * I'm sorry but what Dvals have to do with "Nakh origin of Kakhetians?" I haven't disputed Nakh presence in South Caucasus. But i dispute (and with reason) Nakh origins of Kartvelian Tushs and Kakhetians. Im well aware of distinctions between Tsova-Tush and Tushetians of Omalo, Keselo, Zemo and Kvemo Alvani. I traveled to Tusheti numerous times and have met many locals. The Bats are indeed Nakh speaking people who are culturally Georgian and have nothing in common with Chechens or Ingush but as for Tushetians, Khevsurs, Mokhevians, Pshavs its a different story. Thats what i dispute and not the origins of Dvals, presence of Nakh-speaking people in South Caucasus or origins of the Bats (Tsova-Tush) people. I dispute Nakh origins of Kakhetians (which is NOT claimed by any Georgian scholar, Melikishvili especially) and I dont think Vakhushti alluded to this claim in any way. Anyway, thanks again for your constructive approach, and for providing references to specific scholars. It seems you know great deal about our region. Best Regards. Iberieli (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I took awhile to reply, I've been busy. First of all, I'm not Circassian, though I too recognize the Genocide (not in the least because I have ancestors who fled the Russians to Turkey as well, though they weren't Circassians). As for theories of Persian Georgians, that is pretty absurd (it reminds me of "Syrian/Arab Chechens" theories...)...though it sounds much more like something that was originally a Russian (or at least pro-Russian Abkhaz) invention to me.


 * About Vakhushti, I'd like to read it, though my Russian isn't good at all. If you want to send it you can, though I don't know how you'll get my email, because I'm not posting it for the world to see on Wikipedia talk. That his work isn't scholarly is probably a good point... though one could say virtually the same about many historical authors, including Mroveli. That they based their info primarily on stories and hearsay and myth; some of it being legitimate, other parts (like the names of the mythical ancestors of Caucasian nations) being that which should not be taken literally. I think the best thing to do is to say that on the page and cite it somewhere, that Vakhushti is not an authoritative ethnographic source.


 * About the Kakh(etians)- we should put in the opposing evidence and cite it then. But we should be careful in that not to make a synth error. What I'm saying is this: the point that I've heard before from virtually everyone (including Jaimoukha!) is that the "Kakh were one of the central groups of the Georgian (more specifically, Iberian) Kingdom." That, however does not imply that the statement "The Kakh may have been a Nakh-speaking group" is false however. They aren't mutually exclusive. I could bring up many examples, the best coming to mind right now being the Etruscans and their relation to the modern Italians (who speak the language descended of that of the neighbors of the Etruscans, the Latins, but They were not Italic, or even Indo-European speakers, like the modern Italians. But Etruscans represent one of the most central groups (culturally, historically, geographically, ethnically) of Italy and the ethnogenesis of modern Italians, and the importance of Etruscan-origin cities (like Florence) rivals that of Rome. So it is not impossible that the Kakh are like the Etruscans, and were extremely important to Georgia and very integral to the concept of being Georgian, but nonetheless didn't originally speak the tongue that evolved into Georgian.


 * As for what the Kakh actually were is debatable- they could have been speaking something very similar to Kartlian (or whatever we'll call it, Ancient Georgian) the whole time; or they may have had a separate Kartvelian language (like the Mingrelians and Svans still do); they might have been a group separate both from Kartvelic-speakers and Nakh-speakers (Tsezic maybe?). Or they could have been Nakh, judging by their close proximity to other Nakh groups, Mroveli's comments about "Gargareans" from Urartu (or did he call them simply "Urartians"? I know Strabo called them Gargareans...) who fled Urartu and "returned" to their home in the Eastern parts of the Iberian kingdom. Then there's Strabo, who talked about Gargareans fleeing Urartu "back" into the Caucasus. I almost wonder if Gargarea is the same as the historical region of Gogharena as well (which shows up on File:Georgianiberia_andersen565.JPG), as that area matches the region in what is now Northern Armenia that is full of Nakh placenames... but that's getting off topic- point being, Kakheti/Kakhia is also surrounded by regions with more confirmed Nakh heritage. But that still doesn't mean they are necessarily Nakh, and we can note opposition to the theory if it can be cited, though we already have the other theory posted.


 * On the other hand, however... you can't find where Vakhushti alluded to it if he did (I trust you, at least for now, to not hide it)> Are you sure its the right one of his books (does he have more than one?). Does it really not mention them thinking that they are the kin of Gligvs and Dzurdzuks? In any case, we should at least, if you have any sources, site stuff of them being Kartvelic speakers too... but I don't know if having something like "Jaimoukha says Vakhushti says".... is really good. We might want to make the note about Tsobena more prominent instead and make note of the whole Gargarean scenario described by Strabo and Mroveli. I'll just delete the thing about Vakhushti for now and leave Jaimoukha's claim isolated.


 * Sorry for the long response (hope you have the patience to read it all...). --Yalens (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you are not Circassian but had ancestors who fled Russians than you might be either Ubykh, Abkhaz, Abazin, Chechen, Dargin, Avar, Lezgin, Karachai or Balkarian. There were also Ossetians. However, if you ask Circassians, Ubykhs, Abaza and even Abkhaz are Circassians :) Honestly Yalens, I have never ever come across the claim that Kakhetians were Nakh speaking people at any given time. Jaimoukha is the first scholar to claim so and frankly, its simply speculation and is not based on any ethnographic evidence. The geographical proximity to Nakh speaking people does not suggest that there is any linguistic or even cultural relations between the Kartvelian Kakhetians and Nakhs. I like Vakhushti's work (he only published one historic outline of Georgia), it has lots of secondary and tertiary sources which might not have been known if he didn't evoke them in his book. There are no English translations of his book but he is quoted by many modern historians in the West (Suny, Allen, Lang, Brosset).
 * There are many provocative books written by local Caucasian scholars (such as Chechen Bolatoikha Djambolat) who base their arguments on pseudo-historiography which elevates the role on his people and intentionally misinterprets the medieval Georgian sources. But I agree with you and with many parts of your arguments. There are many Nakh sounding words in South Caucasus such as Nakhichivan, and Artsakh (the land for which Armenians and Azeris are cutting each others throats but bears a Chechen name :). Did you read David Marshal Land or Cyril Toumanoff? Cyril who was a respected scholar in US gives a brief introduction to ethnography of Caucasus in his landmark book: The History of Christian Caucasus. I think his article can answer some of your questions. Its not available online but I have it electronically too. Just go to my profile and go to Email the user and you can email me your address and I will send you the scanned copy if you are interested. Thanks a lot for taking time, it seems that we are both interested in the same topic. Iberieli (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You know plenty about the North Caucasus too :). As for Jaimoukha, do you like the current revision? Pretty much, the claim is still there, but I've isolated Jaimoukha. And I will do that... --Yalens (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a very interesting discussion here and I hope would not mind if I contributed to the argument. Some interesting facts to keep in mind are that ancient Albanians spoke in a language that was related to Lezgian and respectively to Vainakh language. Speakers of that ancient tongue still live (majority of them in Georgia and Azerbaijan) and are called Udins. It is commonly accepted that as Kingdom of Urartu disintegrated, her Vainakh inhabitants shred to her northeastern parts and consolidated to later emerge as kingdom of Albania. (today's Azerbaijan). Thee are many disagreements about origins of different ethnic groups of Urartu but there is one thing that most of the scholars agree on. The fall of Urartu marked the era of migrations and resettlement that lasted for centuries. It is known to us from remains of Urartu state that her north was inhibited by iberian groups and her northwest was inhibited by Qohls (kolkheti state). Many also agree that migrations that followed the disintegration of Urartu state, let many of the Vainakhian groups deeper across the northern Caucasus. Previously they could have situated only to the southeastern parts of Caucasus (slightly penetrating into the north) The region that is currently in Azerbaijan. Although It highly doubted that Kakhs had an Vainakh origin. It is possible (the most likely it was the case) that Kakhetians and Vainakh people had interaction to eachother, even before the emergence of State of Albania. Kakhetians and Hers had very close relations to Caucasian Albanians (vainakhs) as well. --69.121.14.144 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Couple details to correct on:
 * First, nobody claims that the Kakh were Vainakh (Vainakh=Chechens+Ingush), but rather that they were Nakh, a broader, more inclusive, category.
 * Second, Caucasian Albanians were speakers of a Lezgic language, and thus were not Nakh. Instead, they're related to Lezgins, Tabarassans and so on, who also aren't Nakh. --Yalens (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

History section of Tusheti page is mainly about Bats people.
The whole section of history of the region is mainly about Bats people and less so about the history of the region itself. I will be making changes about it in the following days, after i have gathered the information Lemabeta (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)