Caucasian Albania

[Davo88]

Caucasian Albania was an independent kingdom in the north-east of Armenia, in what is now called Azerbaijan. According to Strabo there was not one Albanian nation, but 26 different tribes across their country including some Armenians. Albania was one of the first countries to officially adopt Christianity, their Church being often in communion with ours. Their alphabet, created by Mesrob Mashdots himself, glaringly resembles to that of the Armenians. During the Battle of Avarayr they sided with us against the Sassanid Persians in order to defend Christianity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Mat142rk.jpg

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caucasian-albania/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania

This being said, how can Azerbaijanis claim Albanian hertiage, and thus justify their claim on Artsakh?

[jgk3]

Re: Caucasian Albania

Caucasian Albania was an independent kingdom in the north-east of Armenia, in what is now called Azerbaijan. According to Strabo there was not one Albanian nation, but 26 different tribes across their country including some Armenians. Albania was one of the first countries to officially adopt Christianity, their Church being often in communion with ours. Their alphabet, created by Mesrob Mashdots himself, glaringly resembles to that of the Armenians. During the Battle of Avarayr they sided with us against the Sassanid Persians in order to defend Christianity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Mat142rk.jpg

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caucasian-albania/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania

This being said, how can Azerbaijanis claim Albanian hertiage, and thus justify their claim on Artsakh?

Because like any story, there's two sides. There's the Armenian narrative regarding Aghvank, which is pretty much the result of our historic political and religious domination over it, but also the native narrative which pretty much didn't have a voice of its own to speak in this case.

The Azeris simply gave that missing "second side of the story" their own voice, and encourage Georgian accounts of its history, because Georgians are good at countering the Armenian historical narrative with their own. The modern scholarship on Caucasian languages is actually pretty good too, and it tends to check the claims Armenians make regarding the Christian history of Albania, so these findings are also prone to be exploited with an Azeri twist to it.

[ashot24]

Re: Caucasian Albania

This being said, how can Azerbaijanis claim Albanian hertiage, and thus justify their claim on Artsakh?

Azerbaijanis claim Albanian heritage and history as their own because they have a terrible campaign on twisting things so they benefit them when it comes to history, territory, ethnicity (above all), besides their desire to have anything, any excuse to claim Armenia is their "historical territory"

1) Azeries deeply believe they are the "descendants of the Caucasian Albanians", yet you see how proud and how out loud they speak about their "Turkic origins", yet the CAs had nothing to do with the Turks, Turks are Altaic by origin and ethnicity...CAs are well, Caucasians. You cannot be two things at the same time, SPECIALLY when those two things are so apart from each other...not only ethnically, but historically and territorially. It's very curious how they behave, they change their identity molding it according to the situation and how it can benefit them. They're Turks when they speak about their origins, the brotherhood of Turkic nations, want to get support from Turkey, etc....they are Caucasian Albanians when they want to claim the ancient territories of the millenarian state of Armenia (along with our culture, etc.)...and they are Azeries when they want to claim the territories of Northern Iran/Azarbaijan. That's a serious identity disorder. But in all times, Azeries claim to be Turks Turks Turks, so that's what they are...Turks, not CAs or Persians, but Turks, and Turks cannot claim presence in the region before 10th-11th AD. So it's clear who they are. They are Turks, not Caucasian Albanians.

2) Azeries live each day believing about the ancient Azerbaijan, the ancient region, the ancient people, and how ancient they are. Well, that's partly true. However, Azerbaijan cannot claim presence as a generative name for a region until the 9th to 10th century AD. Yeah, Azeries are a relative ancient people, ancient Persian people who were Turkified after the arrival of the Turks, so they became Persian Turkic-speaking people, with whatsoever no relationship to the CAs or the Caucasus region. But what the Azeries forgot (or deliberately do) to mention, is the fact that the region of Azerbaijan has always been known to be generally located below the Araqs river. Look at this map of the Mongol Empire, tell me, where do you see Azerbaijan? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dominions1.jpg

What Azeries do is take the history of a REGION in the world, and mistake it for the history of their people. The territory has a long history, the place were Azerbaijan is located has a long history, but that doesn't mean that the people who inhabit in it share that history.

Is like Australia, the territory of Australia has a long history in humanity, but the European decedents that today populate Australia cannot claim that all the cultural heritage and history of the indigenous people from Australia is theirs. Europeans were invaders, the only history they can claim is that of when their people invaded the lands. The same goes for the region of ancient Caucasian Albania and today's Azerbaijan, Turks invaded, killed and took the lands of its indigenous people. The difference is, they claim the history, heritage of those who they invaded as theirs.

3) Also, it's kind of curious that before Soviet times the name "Azerbaijan" and "Azeries" was not used for the region or the people of preset day Azerbaijan. You can search ANY document on that time and what will appear is "Caucasian Tartar" or just "Tartar".

A curious fact for you, if anyone of you my friends has read the book "Tales from The Caucasus" or just "The Caucasus" by Alexandre Dumas (father) released in 1859, the writer mentions the life of the peoples from the Caucasus from a trip he made, and he states very clearly what ethnic groups there are there: the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Tartars. Now, are these the Tartars from Tartarstan in Russia? Nope, he's referring to the Caucasus. It just seems to curious that Azeries are not mentioned by ANYONE, not even foreigners and visitors, as an ethnic group in the Caucasus up until 1920s and 1930s or in general Sovit times. Also curious is the fact, that the riots during 1918-1920 in the Caucasus (which the Azeries claim to be their "genocide") are named generally by historians Armenian-Tartar (present day Azerbaijanis) conflict. It is weird that people who were used to be named with one name, then came to be known with another, and in a really short period of time. Either all Tartars were deported and/or killed and people from Northern Iran (i.e. Azarbajanis) took their place, or simply the name was later put on them. And at the same time it is also curious that the people from Northern Iran aka Azarbaijanis or Azerbaijanis claim themselves to have no relation to the Azeries from Azerbaijan.

Fact of the matter is, these "Azeries" (Tartars from the Caucasus) have never been linked historically to the region that was for centuries named Armenia and inhabited by Armenians before the arrival of the Turks. Since they know that, they have to come up with something to compensate their lack of historical proof, and they took the history and heritage of the Caucasian Albanians as theirs in order to claim presence here, and hence claim land that never belonged to them. Because they also lie that the Kingdom of CA was larger that it was at its largest extend. According to them, CA not only hold Artsakh (not mentioning "for a while" of course) but extended all the way to Nakhichevan and even Masis. Also according to them, Artsakh is a Caucasian Albanian word which latter derived in Azeri, which means "Land of many Sakhs"...now who are the Sakhs? According to them as well, an ancient Azerbainani tribe...which apart from Azeri sources you cannot find named anywhere else.

The issue and problem here, is that they have the support of the Georgians when it comes to alter history to their benefit. Georgians have also sided with the Turks, claiming our churches in Western Armenia as theirs. In Turkey, when you go to Ani, the Turkish guides will tell you that Ani was a Georgian city. According to the Georgians, Armenians came from India in the 9th century BC to occupy "ancient" Georgian lands and stole "ancient" Georgian culture. Both stories contradict themselves when you look at them, the Georgian and the Azeri, for each one is designed to benefit the side who created it. So you can find the lie here, according to the Azeries, we came into the region only 200 years ago ...and to the Georgians in 9th BC from India...what conclusion can you make?

In 2000, my cousin was in Georgia, and what he found left a very bad impression of Georgian propaganda against Armenians. In Georgia, they were already celebrating their alleged "1700 of Christianity" claiming that that they were the first Christian country ever. Can you imagine that? And back then, there was no Sakishvili...Georgians are as cynical as the Azeries. Also, if anyone of you also remembers, back at the 2008 Georgian-Russian war...when McCain oppenly supported the Georgians, in his visit to Georgia he claimed they "were the first Christian nation in the world"...only after being corrected, he changed "the first" for "one of the first". Anyways, McCain is National Hero of Georgia today.

That's why my dear friend, sorry if this is large to read...but I had much to say.

[Davo88]

Re: Caucasian Albania

What you say about Tartars is very true. When you look at 19th century or early 20th century documents, nowhere are the Muslims of Caucasus referred as Azeris. It is also funny that they're not even called Turks, but merely Tartars.

For example in this book : http://armenianhouse.org/villari/cau...an-tartar.html

Azerbaijanis not only claim heritage from Caucasian Albanians, but also from an ancient region called Atropatene in what is now Iranian Azerbaijan. It is doubtful however that there is any relation at all between Atropatene and Albania besides the fact that they were neighbouring kingdoms. It is clear that Azerbaijan is merely a fabricated nation, and this fabrication is done in order to create homogeneity and stability in the oil-rich area.

However I did not know that Georgians have such an important role in trivializing Armenian history in the Caucasus. Georgia does not even recognize the Armenian genocide. They may not comprehend this for the moment, but it is in their best interests to support us against Azerbaijan and Turkey because in the end, we are Christians and they are Muslims. Ani is a Georgian city? Right...

Also according to them, Artsakh is a Caucasian Albanian word which latter derived in Azeri, which means "Land of many Sakhs"...now who are the Sakhs? According to them as well, an ancient Azerbainani tribe...which apart from Azeri sources you cannot find named anywhere else.

Do you think that this refers to the Scythians? From what I understood in Wikipedia, Scythians have more to do with Persians than with Turks, so no relation at all with Azerbaijanis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka

[retro]

Re: Caucasian Albania

Azerbaijanis, Turks, Kurds and Armenians all have indigenous regional components. The Azeris and Turks are ethnically mixed and they aren't all eastern Eurasian Mongolic-Asiatic/Turanic types.

A 2003 study found that: "Y-chromosome haplogroups indicate that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians (of the Republic of Azerbaijan) are genetically more closely related to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere."[84] The authors of this study suggest that this indicates a language replacement of indigenous Caucasian peoples. There is evidence of limited genetic admixture derived from Central Asians (specifically Haplogroup H12), notably the Turkmen, that is higher than that of their neighbors, the Georgians and Armenians. MtDNA analysis indicates that the main relationship with Iranians is through a larger West Eurasian group that is secondary to that of the Caucasus, according to a study that did not include Azeris, but Georgians who have clustered with Azeris in other studies.[86] The conclusion from the testing shows that the Caucasian Azeris are a mixed population with relationships, in order of greatest similarity, with the Caucasus, Iranians and Near Easterners, Europeans, and Turkmen. Other genetic analysis of mtDNA and Y-chromosomes indicates that Caucasian populations are genetically intermediate between Europeans and Near Easterners, but that they are more closely related to Near Easterners overall. Another study, conducted in 2003 by the Russian Journal of Genetics, links Iranians in Azerbaijan (the Talysh and Tats) with Turkic

Azerbaijanis of the Republic:

“the genetic structure of the populations examined with the other Iranian-speaking populations (Persians and Kurds from Iran, Ossetins, and Tajiks) and Azerbaijanis showed that Iranian-speaking populations from Azerbaijan were closer to Azerbaijanis than to Iranian-speaking populations inhabiting other world regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_people#Genetics

European back-migration to the region is also quite intresting.

------

Recent back-migration can be estimated by an examination of the presence, in the Near East, of clusters that are most likely to have evolved within Europe. Haplogroup U5 is very ancient (50,000 years old) in both Europe and the Near East, but it occurs more sporadically in the Near East and is absent from Arabia.

In the Near East, it is largely restricted to peripheral populations (Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Azeris, or Egyptians): only three individuals from the core Near Eastern regions (namely, the Fertile Crescent and Arabia) harbor U5 sequence types; of these, one is the root sequence type, whereas the other two are members of the highly derived subcluster U5a1a (for the nomenclature for U5, seetable 2). Overall, 8 of 22 Near Eastern U5 types are members of this highly derived subcluster, and an additional 6 are members of the next-most-derived subcluster, U5a1*. There are four members of U5b, one member of U5a*, and only three members of U5*.

Moreover, these Near Eastern types are frequently derivatives of European intermediate types: one Egyptian type is derived from a Basque type, and many Armenian and Azeri types are derived from European and northern-Caucasian types.

Therefore, whereas the U5 root sequence type (16270) could conceivably have originated in the Near East and have spread to Europe 50,000 YBP, with recurrent back-migration ever since, a European origin for the U5 cluster seems just as probable. In either case, the U5 cluster itself would have evolved essentially in Europe. U5 lineages, although rare elsewhere in the Near East, are especially concentrated in the Kurds, Armenians, and Azeris.

This may be a hint of a partial European ancestry for these populations—not entirely unexpected on historical and linguistic grounds—but may simply reflect their proximity to the Caucasus and the steppes. Of the Near Eastern lineages, 1.8% (95% CR = .012–.027) are members of U5, in contrast to 9.1% (95% CR = .081–.103) in Europe; in the core region of Syria-Palestine through Iraq, the proportion falls to 0.5% (95% CR = .002–.015). Overall, this suggests the presence of as much as 20% of back-migrated mtDNA in the Near East but only 6% in the core region.

[Davo88]

Re: Caucasian Albania

What you say may or may not be true, but note that Azerbaijanis do not justify their claims because of their blood composition and what not...

[ashot24]

Re: Caucasian Albania

However I did not know that Georgians have such an important role in trivializing Armenian history in the Caucasus. Georgia does not even recognize the Armenian genocide. They may not comprehend this for the moment, but it is in their best interests to support us against Azerbaijan and Turkey because in the end, we are Christians and they are Muslims. Ani is a Georgian city? Right...

The Georgians are as cynical as the Azerbaijanis and the Turks, claiming half of Armenia is theirs. As I said, they celebrated their "1700 years of Christianity" in 2000, exactly one year before we did, although it is worldwide known that Armenia was the first Christian nation, they publicly spread that that is a lie, and that Georgia was the first. My cousin was going to Batumi in 2000, and he passed through Tiflis and he found this http://i045.radikal.ru/1004/dc/5581b93f3936.jpg


In Georgia, as well as in Azerbaijan, they claim our land, our culture and our history as theirs...in resume, everything Armenia is stolen from the Georgians. According to the Georgians, Lorri, Tavush, and Shirak belong to them, which clashes to the Azerbaijani version, which also claims all of Armenia. Georgian claims all of the churches and territories in Northern Armenia and half of the ones in Western Armenia are Georgian culture territory under the great Bagratid monarchs.

In Medieval times, Armenians and Georgians had a strong union on Christianity against the Muslim invaders that were becoming each time larger in the region. For example, the Zakarid-Mxargrzeli family ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakarid-Mxargrzeli), a prominent and noble family in medieval times which gained fame as military commanders, and to whom Queen Tamara (or Tamar) of Georgia (who was of Armenian descent) asked Sargis Zaqaryan's sons Ivan and Zaqare to protect Armenian and Georgian lands from Muslims, both sons took went ways with Ivan converting to the Georgian church and Zaqare to the Armenian church. We know the family as the noble Zaqaryans, under whom during Mets Hayq proclaimed the city of Ani as the capital in 1199. Georgians know them as the Mkhargrdzelebi family.

I think it was during the arise of Georgian nationalism back the days of the first Georgian republic, that all mention of Armenians in Georgia in history was erased, and it was changed instead with the popular version of the "Armenian invaders and thiefes" Tartars and Turks were spreading. You tell one Georgian about any of the things I mentioned previously, they will disown you as a friend, and come up with the "you came from India to invade our lands"...

And not only that since they are also pretty anti-Armenian, not only treating Armenians from Javakhq as second-class citizens, prohibiting them to be Armenians, but also deny the Armenian genocide and sided with the Azeries and Turks in their campaign against Armenia...that's why when Azeries want to have some not Azerbaijani sources where Armenians are portrayed as monsters, as invaders, as killers and as thiefes, they come to the Georgians...who are more than happy to provide them with them.

Do you think that this refers to the Scythians? From what I understood in Wikipedia, Scythians have more to do with Persians than with Turks, so no relation at all with Azerbaijanis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saka

I have also questioned myself about this. And it's kind of confusing, some Azeri sources call them Sakhs, others Sak's. The most common version is this, as Azeri sources claim:

Caucasian Albanians were a nation, which, according to the ancient geographer Strabo, consisted of 26 tribes, ethnic groups, such as Albans themselves, as well as Gargars, Udis, etc. Some of them were of Turkic descent, while majority were indigenous authohontous Caucasian tribes, speaking in Caucasian languages. The Artsakh area was also inhabited by Sakhs from which the name "Artsakh" means "Land of manly Sakhs." They lived in the region already in IV century B.C.

That version clashes with another version of these "Sakhs". They are mentioned as one of the tribes that left their trace in the ethnogenesis of today's Turkmens, Scythians are also mentioned (http://www.turkmenistan.ru/?page_id=...sort=date_desc).

Both sources (Turkic sources) claim that Schythians tribes (i.e the Sakhas/Sak's/Sakas) took part in the ethnogenesis of Turkic, but each underline their role in the ethnogenesis of their particular variation of Turks. And both versions do not even make reference to the Iranian origions of these tribues...both calling them Turkic tribes.

Funny isn't it?

[SevSpitak]

Re: Caucasian Albania

There is a very easy way to explain Azerbaijanis:

Their identity changes to their benefit. To have a legitimate history, they claim to be Caucasian Albanians. To have a legitimate reason to expand and have a pitiful fable of separation (and to justify their name), they claim to be Iranian Azerbaijanis. To have a legitimate brotherly union they refer to themselves as Turkic Peoples. But everyone knows they cannot be all three, and that's why the only way they can be taken seriously is through their oily bribery. An Azerbaijani claiming those three identities is like a Chinese man claiming to be Russian, Chinese and African at the same time. Or, it's like if Turkey, today, included Hittites in their history. The thing they don't understand is that Caucasian Albania had vanished by the time Arabs had invaded the region, long before Oghuz Turkic tribes entered the region.

There is only one truth. They are not Iranian Azerbaijanis and they are not Caucasian Albanians. They are an amalgamated, mixed muslim people. They are Turks who have absorbed the blood of Caucasians, and Iranians, and even Armenians and Georgians, just like Turkey absorbed Balkan and Anatolian peoples. If they are to carry an identity, it would be Shirvani Turks (or Arrani Turks, or something on that line) and then they would have a legitimate history.

I personally think their best bet would be to be part of Turkey, because after all, they are remnants of Kara/Ak Koyunlu, which had its western portion absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, and are today part of the country Eastern Turks of Turkey. Turkey, as I mentioned, is the amalgamation of Turkified Devsirme (turncoat) Christians, Persians, Arabs, and Turkic tribes, pretty much like the "Azerbaijanis."

[SevSpitak]

Re: Caucasian Albania

As for Scythians, they are an Indo-European people, not Turkic, and to my knowledge, they claim Sakh were Scythians.

If you check on historical maps, you will see Sacasene (or something like that) where Artsakh is.

Here's a historical background. Sakhs were Scythian tribes who had settled in the region during Urartu (but they were not part of Urartu), which was succeeded by the Satrapy of Armina (Armenia). Under the Kingdom of Armenia (successor of Satrapy of Armina, and by now they were part of Armenia), the local ethnic groups were all already amalgamated (a process which had already begun since the times of Urartu) to become a unified people of Armenia. Urartu, itself, was a federative kingdom in that it wasn't homogenous at all. Armenia is the the kingdom in which all the Urartian minorities had become one.

-ene was a hellenix suffix, therefore, you can infer the root name of Sacasene is Saca/Saka -- compare Atrpat-akan & Atropat-ene. They refer to these people when they say Sakhs, but they forget one important thing. These Scythians were part of Armena, and are part of the ethnogenesis of Artsakh Armenians, which had already been amalgamated and Armenianized LONG before Caucasian Albania took over the territory.

Armenia didn't begin as a homogenous nation (neither did ANY other nation in history). Armenia is the result of the amalgamation of possibly HUNDREDS of local ethnic tribes. As I mentioned earlier, the Sakhs had already been absorbed into the Armenian nation long before Caucasian Albania took over the territory due to the weakening of the Armenian Kingdom. Artsakh is no different than Gyumri (which, as opposed to Artsakh, was a Cimmerian settlement in Urartu, which later became part of the Gyumri Armenian ethnogenesis).

Sakhs were definitely a different entity, but that was 2600 years ago. In short, (my dumbed down explanation), 2500 years ago, they stopped calling themselves Sakh, and began to call themselves Armenian, just like all other originally non-Armenian tribes, because they ALL lived in a kingdom called Armenia.

Therefore, you can easily conclude that they distort the truth to their liking. Sakhs had nothing to do with Caucasian Albanians and even less Azerbaijanis. In baby language, Scythians and Armenians got married to create Artsakh

Of course, "Sakh" is not their real name, I'm only using that name to explain. I don't know what their real name was, all I know is that the region of Artsakh was indeed settled by Scythians, at the time when "Armenia" didn't even exist. By the time "Armenia" came into existence, those Scythians became part of it, and they are, to this day, part of it.

(I'd like to mention that this is the information I have gathered thus far through my personal research. I don't have many sources to back it up, but I invite people to refute this, or better inform me about it.)

Here are some quickly-found sources that don't exactly explain this, but help reinforce my claims/statements (click CTRL+F or CMD+F and type "Armenia"):

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythianancestors.html

http://www.britam.org/now/now422.html

[ashot24]

Re: Caucasian Albania

Indeed a good research Sev jan, Azeries have an identity disorder not even Freud could manage

Also something I wanted to add, have anyone of you guys ever seen the seal of the city of Nakhichevan? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...akhchivan2.png

It seems Azeries also claim Ararat as theirs, it is already an offence to know our Ararat is on Turkish territory, and it gets worse when you see not only a symbol of our faith but a symbol of our people next to the crescent star and in territory stolen from us.