Talk:Principality of Khachen

Why do you, user Grandmaster, think that Khachen principality didn't exist after X century?

Rovoam? Your edit was not about timeline, you just included the word "Armenian" everywhere you could. Grandmaster 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer on my question?

From when is Khachen a Caucasian Albanian princpality? All the sources I have place it as Armenian. Besides, that region was Armenized during that period. Can anyone provide futher documentation? Anatolmethanol 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the page from the article. In Caucasian Albania does not mean Caucasian Albanian by ethnicity. Do not misquote.Hetoum I 19:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I am following you, I have not quoted anything. Anatolmethanol 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the paper, I didn't find anything on it being Albanian on that page. Also the same author write in another paper: ...Khachen region of eastern Armenia... C. J. F. Dowsett, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Feb., 1980), p.138. Is there a source supporting the claim that it is an Albanian principality? Anatolmethanol 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant I checked the page that Arabek cited and his citation is dubious. Hetoum I 04:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

C. J. F. Dowsett. "The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit'ar Goš", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 21, No. 1/3. (1958) on page 475:

"In Albania, Xacen, part of the old province of Arcax, had preserved its independence, and we know that it was partly at the request of one of its rulers, Prince Vaxtang, that Mxit'ar composed his lawbook."

First of all, I have hard time seeing how name Vaxtang would be Armenian, rather than Georgian-sounding, hence being Albanian (Albanian language was closer to Georgian). Please, present your evidence. Thanks. Atabek 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By god you have a point. And Armenian people should not have the name Davit because it is jewish sounding. No original research.Hetoum I 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually the name David is Hebrew in origin. Anyways, I presented the evidence to support my edit. Can you please, present yours. Thanks. Atabek 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have another source? You are assuming. Anatolmethanol 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why another source is needed? I believe C.J.F. Dowsett is NPOV and verifiable enough. And why don't you present your sources too, please. Thanks. Atabek 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your source does not support that it was an Albanian principality. Khachen was officially an Armenian principality with contacts with Georgian princes. Your source does not say it explicitly. If you check the source I provided, it was from the same author and a more recent. Here few more sources, if you want more just ask.

• Sartakh recevait bien tous les chrétiens, et particulièrement les princes arméniens; il honora beaucoup Djalal, prince de Khachen: ce fut aussi par la médiation de Sartakh et de son père, que les princes arméniens et géorgiens qui était soumise à Batchou, furent moins vexés. Ser. 6, v. 11, 14 and 18; ser. 7, v. 1 and 9, ser. 7, v. 16 and 19, ser. 8, v. 5, 9, 13 and 17; "Journal asiatique (Paris, France), Dondey-Dupré père et fils (1833) p. 212-213
• Hasan Jalal Dawla, a Muslim Armenian Melik, proclaimed himself autocratic lord and prince of princes of variously Khachen (Zangezur), Artsakh and Aghvank (Albania)... Small Nations and Great PowersA Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus by Svante E. Cornell, Routledge (2001), ISBN 0700711627 p.66
• A few native Armenian rulers survived for a time in the Kiurikian kingdom of Lori, the Siuniqian kingdom of Baghq or Kapan, and the principates of Khachen (Artzakh) and Sasun. The New Encyclopedia Britannica by Robert MacHenry, Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc, Robert MacHenry, (1993) p.761
• All of the melik clans traced their origins to the house of Khachen, the last remnant of Armenian nobility... Gha-ra-bagh!The Emergence of the National Democratic Movement in Armenia, by Mark Malkasian, Wayne State University Press ISBN 0814326048 p. 19

Here a Muslim traveler in the year of 950

• Khajin (Armenian Khachen) was an Armenian principality immediately south of Barda'a. Abū-Dulaf Misʻar Ibn Muhalhil's Travels in Iran (circa A.D. 950) by Abū Dulaf, Cairo University Press, (1955) p.74
• ...Armenian Prince of Khachen named Jelal,... History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century. Part 2. The So-Called Tartars of Russia ... by Henry Hoyle Howorth, Adamant Media Corporation p.95 Anatolmethanol 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating explicitly it was an Albanian Principality? Anatolmethanol 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted someone who seems to not have logged before reverting. Lets give Atabek the occasion to provide his sources about the principality Albanian origine. Anatolmethanol 19:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did provide evidence to the fact stated in the article that Khachen was Caucasian Albanian principality, see the bolded text above. C.J.F. Dowsett is an expert in the history of Caucasian Albania and the only scholar who translated Movses Kalankatuaci into English in 1961. The anon IP should not be removing sourced material from the page. Atabek 05:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have access to that paper, I don't see anything remotly supporting it. Do you mean you have other sources? If yes, please provide them. As for my side, if you want more sources just ask. Lets say 48 hours, if you do not provide sources than I will have to replace this by what the sources I have posted supports. Regards. Anatolmethanol 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One other point: Sahl ibn-Sunbat, a descendant of ancient kings of Caucasian Albania the source by Dowsett makes a proposition that this might have been a fabricated descendance to give him legimicy over an Albanian trone. I think you've misread Dowsett. Anatolmethanol 06:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Page 462, clearly states "one cannot exclude the possibility", it's not a definitive statement. According to the source provided, Smbat was from the family of Arranshahiks. Atabek 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't see anything explicit there, it is a family name allegedly and Dowsett claims it has no connection with Arrashah, therefor using his name, as how it sound is speculative. I don't understand, why don't you provide a source which is explicit? Don't you have any other reference? I mean, I have provided you 6 with clear explicit terms. I kind of believe that Britannica and a Muslim traveler of the time should have been enough. Anatolmethanol 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I also fail to see what this has to do with Khachen: In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan Anatolmethanol 06:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, taking time to read the referenced page 139 from the book by Charles van der Leeuw would help. Atabek 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book, could you quote? Also, I am wondering why you used Cornell to equal Khachen with Zankezur, Khachen is in Artsakh. Cornell is not a neutral source he runs the Cornell entreprise which serves as a lobbying groupe for the construction of pipelines. It is logical to think that he'll link Khachen to Zankezur which is in Armenia rather than Arstsakh which is officially in Azerbaijan. I don't think you could substitute a biased source with what all others say on the location of Khachen. Can you provide other sources which place it in Zankezur rather than Artsakh? Anatolmethanol 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Both pieces from Cornell and van der Leeuw are available through Google Books, of which I am sure you're aware, due to references you listed above. I believe Cornell was reasonably NPOV, when he claimed that Hasan Jalal was Muslim Armenian, while van der Leeuw claims that "Jalalian" is an invention of Armenian historians.Atabek 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way on the same page 462 of C.J.F. Dowsett's article he completely dismisses any claim that Sahl was related to Armenian Bagratids. Atabek 06:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you be sure of what I am aware? Cornell is not a neutral source, he was awarded by the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan for his work on the subject. He works with Fariz Ismailzade, Political Program Director of IRI(so-called International Republic Institute) with a mission of global support of Azerbaijani politic, Fariz is also Azerbaijan Bureau Director of Cornell Caspian Consulting. The Institute is based at the Caspian Business Center. Cornell run the Cornell Caspian Consulting which is allegedly on the Peace in the Caucasus, but its true mission is to attract investors, if you go on his site on left you press The Caspian Region you will get the Consulting real mission. Cornell does not qualify as a neutral source not in this article or anywhere else. It is obvious he claimed Jalal was Armenian. Denying the obvious would discredit his covering of the subject. What he did insteed is to equal Khachen with Zankezur (in Armenia), rather than where it the recognized to be by the other sources, Artsakh. He knows well that it is an Armenian dynasty, he just changed its location. The possible purpouse of this is obvious, amputate Armenians historical tie with Artsakh. Anyway, I'll check for Leeuw. As for Dowsett, he indeed dismiss Bagradid, he does not dismiss on the other hand him being Armenian. To the contrary, in his footnote he explicitly say that Smbat is not incommon for Armenians and that someone can have that name but not be necessary the son of Smbat. Anatolmethanol 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, der Leeuw does not appear to be on google book. Any link? Also, please don't forget your sources for Khachen being an Albanian principality. Anatolmethanol 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We have two parallel articles called Principality of Khachen and House of Hasan-Jalalyan. Do you guys think it would be a good idea to merge these two? Principality of Khachen was ruled by the family of Hasan-Jalal. --Grandmaster 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are quite the same. Lets see about that. Anatolmethanol 13:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't insist. Just something to think about. --Grandmaster 16:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain me why the page was redirected? Anatolmethanol 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, an explanation for the redirect would be appreciated. VartanM 06:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did provide the explanation in move comments. But will gladly provide them again here. I noticed that Khachen page was empty, so it would only make sense to move this unique topic to shorter title, it will make it easier to search and access. Since there was no conflict with other topics or articles, I guess this should not cause any concern. Unless you specifically want the page to be only at Principality of Khachen. Atabek 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I provide six sources I propose to provide more. Then, you don't provide any when I request you. When I settle this by showing that indeed the Principality is Armenian, Grandmaster propose its merging. I say they are not quite the same and then you rename it. It didn't appear you had any problem with the title when you were claiming it to be Albanian, why the change of mind? I mean, it is pretty much obvious that the principality of Khachen and the location of Khachen are not the same. With this move, you could even justify removing the word Armenian all together by justifying that Khachen is in Albania and that this article is not about the principality. I don't agree with the move, this article was about the principality while you move it for the location. Anatolmethanol 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The most prominent expert on history Caucasian Albania in Western world was C.J.F.Dowsett, as he was the only one who translated Movses Kalankatuaci into English, and cited Artnerseh as Albanian prince of Khachen. But in the spirit of consensus of discussion I incorporated sources mentioning Khachen as Armenian as well. Also references to Minorsky are relevant too in this regard, as he was another top expert.

I don't see how renaming of article is connected to whether Khachen was Armenian or Albanian. Does it really matter if the article is called Khachen or Principality of Khachen? In either case, it means the same thing, and I doubt that is a subject to any form of dispute. There is no evidence you have presented so far to show that Khachen was different from Principality. And, please, assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is the link to van der Leeuw's book [1], scroll for the page cited in the article. And, please, provide precise links to references you provided above as well. As it seems you ask for weblink verification of every reference I provide, I expect the same courtesy in return. Thanks. Atabek 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Dowsett is a very valiable source, and I don't remember saying anything else. The main issue here is that Dowsett does not claim what you claim he claim. I have cited a more recent paper of his, a review of a work..., in which he specically calls Khachen, Armenian. In fact, nowhere does he ever claim that the principality was Albanian. I don't think it is fair for the man who has put so much work into this, to have his research misinterpreted. No one would like that. As for the question on wherever or not the article is renamed. Yes, it is important, you took the decision alone. I did not want the article to be renamed because the principality of Khachen is its principality, Khachen on the other hand is the location. And also, I do see how the location vs the principality could make a differences on the relevency of Caucasian Albania history or Armenia. Please change it back and discuss on the changing of name. BTW, you can check the works I have cited on google book, the reason I have asked Leeuw, is while I do find his work on google book, for the reason the pages are not there. I can not browse the pages. Anatolmethanol 15:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Per your claim: "I have cited a more recent paper of his, a review of a work..., in which he specically calls Khachen, Armenian", you do not appear to be citing Dowsett anywhere on this page with quotes from his articles, reviews of his articles. The quotes from Dowsett above were presented by me. In addition to the source I provided above from "Mxitar Gosh", saying, "in Albania, Xacen part of the old province of Artsakh", his other article on "Neglected passages..." also mentions Atrnerseh, lord of Xacen, and one of the three Albanian princes captured by Bugha in 854.

Page 9 is accessible, and please, provide the weblink references to the material you're sourcing. I asked for that in previous comment above.

Regarding your claim that Khachen is a location different from principality, please, provide references to support your viewpoint. Pending such a proof, the move remains to be legitimate, as both titles point to the same topic. Atabek 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and read carefully what I write. I accept to repeat myself, one time, two time..., but more than this I don't see the necessity. If you read this page, you will indeed see that I did quote from one of his review of another work. Check. [2] He calls it a region of eastern Armenia, it was published in 1980.

None of your sources support your claim. From the same token, we should use a source regarding Anatolia to claim that it was not within Ottoman. Albania was Armenized during those periods, the term Albania was used for nothing more than its location on a map. The principality was clearly run by Armenians. The term Albanian here does not mean that the principality was ethnically Albanian, rather that it was a dynasty in Albania. On my comment, please do not put words in my mouth, I never said the location was different. What I said is that one is a location and the other is the principality. So, how does the move remain legitimate?

I still can not access the work, why don't you quote the relevent part. I am saying that I can find it on google book, but for a reason it does not even let me open a page, for the rest of the works it works. You just have to type those titles on google book and you will find each and every of those. Now, do you finally have a source which will support your claim? I have waited 3 days and still have obtained none. Anatolmethanol 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am calm and assuming good faith. Regarding the links you provided above: [3] claiming Dowsett called it a region of eastern Armenia, you're missing the title of the article. And actually no article by C.J.F.Dowsett was published in 1980 but if you provide the title of the article, I can certainly try to find it. You do need to provide legitimate and verifiable evidence.

My sources as shown above, clearly spell "Albanian prince Artnerseh, lord of Khachen" and "in Albania, Khachen was...". I am yet to see the evidence provided by you to prove that Khachen was Armenian principality. The claim itself is actually baseless, as Xachen and Artsakh were clearly part of Caucasian Albania in the named period in first place. On one side, you're disputing only the ethnicity saying they could be princes of Albania, on the other side, you're saying Xachen was part of eastern Armenia without any sources. So there is a clear inconsistency in your point of view.

If you would like to continue in a repetitive fashion providing no references, ignoring those I provided 3 times already, and insisting that Khachen was Armenian without any evidence, then perhaps, we can engage third parties to identify, verify and review the source of your evidence yet to be seen. I am more than comfortable with that as long as it will help you in finding and seeing the sources I already provided above. Atabek 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering will be repeating myself. Do what you wish to do with the article. Remove any mention to Armenians I won't bother you more. Regards. Anatolmethanol 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I already incorporated your contributions, particularly from Cornell, claiming that Hasan Jalal was Muslim Armenian Melik and from Abu Dhulaf claiming Khachen was Armenian principality south of Bardaa. I also included the evidence by the top expert on Caucasian Albania, and Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies at Oxford, Dr. C.J.F. Dowsett, citing Khachen as Albanian principality and its Albanian princes. So, I believe the balance and neutrality of positions, despite weighty Dowsett reference to Albania, is already there. Please, present further evidence to justify your point, and we will get those points incorporated into the article. Atabek 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted anon who deleted info from the article. --Grandmaster 05:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Current version

First paragraph

Caucasian Albania (dissolved during those years, Western part was controlled by Armenia, the information for which is totally missing). Then a descendany of ancient kings of Caucasian Albania. This is attributed to Dowsett by Atabek, Dowsett never say anything like that, he is translating an Armenian text, which he will later criticize. Atabek's wording these way to build an Albanian descendant, that Dowsett is skeptic about. Then Artsakh, present day Azerbaijan (ignores the hard reached consensus on other articles). Then Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, historians John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake. Atabek misquoted Dowsett and replaced Sahl son of Smbat with Sahl ibn-Sunbat and made the result muddy, even more when he attributed to Minorsky in the footnote, on the main, there is no attribution.

So, in the first Paragraph no mention of Armenians, Armenia in one context which is the claim that the Sahl ruled it.

Finally on the second paragraph, something about Armenians, there is Abu Dulaf description, in this case there is attribution of sources, when in the first paragraph when he is presented as an Albanian prince it was presented as fact. Then: This association is due to the peaceful coexistence of Armenians and other, mainly Caucasian, ethnic groups in Caucasian Albania for more than two centuries under the Arab dominion. Which of course is irrelevent on that paragraph. And of course, this too is presented as fact. The only times Atabek attributed claims, is when he developped about it being Armenian principality or something to do with Armenians.

Then, the third paragraph, Atabek starts: In 13th century, after the downfall of Atabegs of Azerbaijan which of course has no relevency with the article in itself.

He then goes to add this: a feudal prince named Hasan Jalal Dawla, whose origins are obscure but who has been renamed to "Jalalian" by Armenian historians[6], proclaimed himself the lord of Khachen. The reader has absolutly no clue that Jalal is recognized as Armenian by every sources which covers his ethnicity. To support it, he uses Leeuw, a non-credible author (see Davo88's sandbox, for evidence) who's work has been compared to Soviet Azerbaijan nationalist version of history.

Then the claim that he is Armenian (which no one disputes) is relayed to the second order, with other sources claim, and muddy it more by claiming him Muslim Armenian Melik, to support this assertion he uses Cornell, again a none credible source (see Davo88's Sandbox), who places Khachen in Zankezur when it is was centered on the Eastern extremity of Artsakh by every other sources. Even Muslim sources place him as Christian. Then the accurate and non-disputed information that after the Arab dominion, the Caucasian church became a diocese of the Armenian church..., is attributed a source on the main, when it is general knowledge. VartanM 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

VartanM, I believe the information contained in this article was also discussed with the sock of Fadix, from whose material Davo88 created his Sandbox. So, provided that sock was banned, and Fadix's ban was extended by another year, due to persistent personal attacks and individual harassment, I don't see how the information contained there is supposed to have any credibility whatsoever.

Actually, the fact that you criticize Cornell reference in this case, indicates that you should probably read the referenced page of Cornell before disputing him based on Fadix's sandbox. Because Cornell was the one who said Hasan Jalal was a Muslim Armenian Melik, I don't see what part of this statement of Cornell you're disputing as it clearly fits your POV.

Your claims about me, supposedly misportraying Dowsett, do not have a basis whatsoever. I already recited several times the precise word-to-word quote from Dowsett on this page as well as Talk:Sahl ibn-Sunbat. The name of Sahl ibn-Sunbat is in Arabic spelling, it means the same as Sahl, son of Smbat, as cited on Sahl ibn-Sunbat page. The spelling, however, which I only wikified, does not change the essense of Dowsett's quote, that Sahl was an Albanian prince, neither does it mean that Sahl ibn-Sunbat and Sahl, son of Smbat were different people.

And what's your dispute about the fall of Ildegiz Atabegs of Azerbaijan? It's well known that Albanian princes of Artsakh were vassals of Turkic rulers, they were semi-independent. Moreover, I did not add it by myself, that entire sentence comes from the reference cited at the end. Atabek 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Atabek, You have answered none of the points raised. I don't see how Cornell admission that he was Armenian is a testament of his credibility when he places Khachen in Zankezur, far, far away from Partav. He's the only scholar who claims this, which is not substantiated by any other sources. Cornell is not credible, and wherever or not Fadix has been banned does not change the fact that he is a political source. To claim that Jalal was Muslim, you have to provide another source to support it. Works which have been written to create sources can not be substitute to decades of scholarship.

You claim that you have quoted Dowsett several time word by word, which is wrong, you removed Dowsett's Sahl son of Smbat for Sahl ibn-Sunbat, while it is true that ibn means son this is not what Dowsett writes word by word, neither does he use Sunbat, he writes Smbat, by substituting one for the other the footnote looses any sense(on his Armenian connection). You have also not replied to my observation that you have used Dowsett citation by changing the name to then attribute it to Minorsky.

Iidegiz Atabegs have no relevency with Khachen, their fall has no relevency with Khachen, and no it is not well known that they were vassals of Turkic rulers, ud-Din Ildegiz ruled until 1172 and nothing to do with Khachen, and there was nothing called Azerbaijan during those years. You quote Leeuw, when one of the reviewers Fadix uses writes: His interpretation resembles the one developed by Azerbaijani nationalists in the Soviet era: that Azerbaijan has been distinct state since ancient times and has always been centered on what is now the republic of that name.

You are mudding it down, by direct source attribution for everytime there is something on Armenians you placed it in second order, as if its some opinion, and if there is somehting about Albanians and Azerbaijan, both of which words you abuse, you presented as facts. VartanM 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)