Talk:Erivan Khanate

Comments

Why Iravan and not Erivan? What is the official transliteration from Persian?--Eupator 15:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m not really sure. In Russian it was Erivan khanate (Эриванское ханство). In Azeri Iravan khanate (the rulers were ethnic Azeris). Grandmaster 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are POV pushing, there was no such term as you add in Azeri, the Turkified term derives from Erwan, the Azeri term is modern and has no place there. It has no etymology neither historic value. stop POV pushing. Fad (ix) 18:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

According to your pov. I'm going to add a dispute tag very soon unless you cite this. --Eupator 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of POV pushing note that I did not write this article, so obviously there’s no way I could push my POV into it. I think the article should be moved to Erivan Khanate, but I don’t know why you removed the Azeri name in the brackets from the article. All the khanates in the Caucasus were Azeri-Turkic states, except those in Dagestan. Khan is the title of a Turkic ruler, so such titles existed only in those parts of Persia that had Azeri population. Grandmaster 18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is not necessarily Turkic. It was mainly Mongolian. Iranians also adopted the title. They were Iranian Khanates officialy part of Persia. Besides Qajars considered themselves nothing but Iranians despite having Turkic origins. If you can show me a written example from the era, using an Azeri name you can add it. As far as I know the city was only known as Erivan during the period. --Eupator 19:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is a Turkic title, Persians never used it, they always called their rulers Shah. Mongols also took it from Turks, the title existed long before Mongol invasion. Khanates in the Caucasus were Turkic principalities, formally subordinated to Persian shahs, who were also ethnic Azeris at the time. Same Qajars ruled many of the khanates, including Erivan. As for written examples, I don’t have an access to the historical archives, and the rules don’t require any written evidence for inclusion of the name. The name was used by Azeri Turkic rulers and population of the khanate, and that is enough for inclusion. Grandmaster 19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this stuff but pan-Turanist beliefs are of no encyclopedic value.--Eupator 21:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kahanate was not removed, as for mongols having taken it from Turks, keep your nationalistic beliefs for you. Erivan derives from Erwan, the Persian term, the Turks and Persians were using the same alphabet and the same name. Fad (ix) 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You can easily verify my nationalistic beliefs thru academic sources. It is easy to accuse other people of nationalism to obscure your own ignorance. Khan is a shortened version of Khagan, the title was used by Turkic people (Khazars, etc) long before Mongols. As for Qajars, according to Bakikhanov's book Gulistani-Iram, the rulers of Erivan Khanate were Qajar Turks (Ustajlu was one of Qajar clans), and Qajars ruled Armenia and Shirvan during reign of Safavids. Khans of Erivan and Ganja were their descendants (i.e. also Qajars). Also he describes how 50 thousand Qajar families were settled in Erivan, Ganja and Karabakh by Tamerlan, and in the course of time increased in number. So the population of the khanate was mostly Qajar Turks (one of Azeri clans). See Bakikhanov (in Russian):

Каджары — это племя Джалаирских тюрок из числа тех 200 тысяч семейств, которые были переселены Хулагу-ханом (внуком Чингиз-хана) в Персию. В Ma'acup-u султанийе (истории Каджаров) сказано: Сартак — один из влиятельных людей этого племени, был наставником Аргун-хана и правителем Хорасана и Табаристана. Он имел сына по имени Каджар, от которого и пошло это племя. Часть каджаров некогда переселилась в Анатолию и Сирию. Эмир Теймур (Тамерлан) переселил 50 тысяч семейств каджаров в Кавказский край и поселил их в Эриване, Гандже и Карабаге, где они в течение времени еще более умножились. Многие из этих каджаров при сефевидских шахах были государственными деятелями и управляли Армениею и Ширваном. Это от них произошли эриванские и ганджинские ханы, из которых последние, по имени Зияд оглы, раньше были владыками земель от Худаферинского моста до деревни Шулавер, что выше Красного моста в Грузии. Когда Надир-шах добивался в Мугани персидского престола, то ганджинские ханы, преданные дому Сефевидов, воспротивились его желанию. Однако он, утвердившись на престоле, ограничился только ослаблением их власти, переселив многих из Карабага в Хорасан. Меликов же Бергушадского и Хамсинских подчинил главному правителю Азербайджана. Жителей магалов Карахского из числа переселенных Хулагу-ханом и Борчалинского, поселенных на границах Грузии шах Аббасом I, Надир поручил грузинскому валию и таким образом под властью ханов ганджинских остались только окрестности города Ганджи. [1] Grandmaster 13:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Khan is altaic word which has been used back to China (in its more rudimentary forms) by the mongols. That mongols use it has nothing to do with them having taken it from Turks, but rather that both use languages of the same origin. There is an entry here in Wikipedia about Khagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Khan

Whatever, it still proves that Khan was a title used by Turkic and Mongol rulers, and not Persians. Grandmaster 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And where have I said else? Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You said: It was mainly Mongolian. Iranians also adopted the title. In fact, Iranians did not use this title, they called their rulers shah. Grandmaster 06:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is true, mainly does not assume it isen't Turkic, like I said, both set of languages had the same origine. I have never questioned what you imply I have questioned. Fad (ix) 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Uggh! I don't visit too often and there is already a discussion! As far as I know the Irevan, Erivan, Yerevan Iravan was written as آرون which allows any connotation. Turkish rulers of the khanate were pronouncing it as Iravan... Before Qajars reassembled Persia, khanate was pretty much independent and ottoman leaning ... Now I don't care really its the same name Abdulnr 01:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is some contemporary spelling on the coin from 1730

http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=12186&si=Yerevan&what=allfields

or: http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=23860&si=Yerevan&what=allfields Abdulnr 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I read Arabic script, آرون is Arwan or Erwan (the first letter is hard to place there, because the aleph I think is not really spelled the same way in Persian, and it depend on if we take the classical Arabic intonation, we need a Persian to confirm it. In any cases, this confirm what I have been saying. As for the prounciation of the Turkish rulers, Ottoman Turkish pronounciation of آرون is not Iravan, it is hard to place in English how it was spelled, there is not letter which would mimic its spelling. I don't know of Azeri, but neither does modern Turkish has the same intonation as Ottoman Turkish had, prounciations have slightly drifted with the modernization of Turkish after the Kemalist system. The thing here is that, the uses of any modern alphabet with its proper spelling has no value neither any places for a period in which this alphabet did not exist, neither the term by this proununciation. Regards. Fad (ix) 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the second coin (ottoman) is spelled without Alef (althought it is hard to read)which makes it Revan. Abdulnr 12:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that without the aleph, according to some classical Arabic proununciation it could still be spelled as an 'yerrr' 'errr' the aleph would accentuate it. I think آرون should be added in the lead, as it is historically valid there.

Yes it is historically valid while Irevan is not.--Eupator 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not? That’s what khans called their land. Grandmaster 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Provide a written material that attest to that. Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the naming conventions don’t require any written material. Verbal tradition should be enough. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We need published data, which is obvious. Fad (ix) 08:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Persians of Azeri origin

This is what you have when someone does not want to acknowledge a simple fact that the khanate was ruled by ethnic Azeri Turks. Grandmaster 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have even debated that issue. Fad (ix) 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eupator replaced the line “However the dynasty and ruling elite of the principality is known to be Azeri Turkish” with “However the dynasty and ruling elite of the principality were Persians of Azeri origin”. To me that sounds completely absurd. Why can’t you just say that they were Azeri Turks? Grandmaster 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are not even saying that population was Turkish or Persian or Armenian (this is a different debate) , we are saying that rulers were turkic and not Persian (Farsi) In most of Persia the dynasties were of turkish (ic) beys with such names as Ustajlu, Bayat, Rumlu, Kengerli. I doubt there were a lot of Persians (I mean ethnically) bar civil admninistrators in Armenia in 18 century. Abdulnr 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple question Abdul, which state under which name did these governors represent?--Eupator 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Another simple question: were they ethnic Persians? The article already says that it was a principality under the dominion of Persia. Grandmaster 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In all likelihood most were not. However, this is a matter of controversy (see the edit wars for Safavids for example). My main point remains that we cannot call them ethnic Azeris no matter what. I have no major problem with the current version. There must be some record of how they identified themselves and my guess is they identified themselves as Persians whatever their ethnicity by our modern standards was. Granted ethnic divisions were murky back then overshadowed by religion and sects.--Eupator 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Their ethnicity is very well known. They were Azeri Turks from Qajar clan (see Bakikhanov). There’s not much to dispute here. If you have any evidence that they identified themselves otherwise you are welcome to present it here. Grandmaster 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. PS: Very objective source you're leading me to: Bakikhanov :) --Eupator 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided my proof. Bakikhanov is one of the main sources on the history of the Caucasus, both South and North. If you noticed, even Armenian historians refer to him. History of Muslim khanates is known mostly from Muslim sources, such as Bakikhanov, Mirza Jamal, Mirza Adigezal bey, etc. There were no Azerbaijan or Armenia at that time, so those sources are quite objective. Grandmaster 18:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange aversion to Turks here. They identified themselves first and foremost as Shia Muslims and then Turks, very unlikely Persian. For example Alevi turks (Shias on Anadolu, as Turkish as you can get) supported Persia and were persecuted. As for khanates, they in many case supplanted beglerbeys and were even more Turkic than governors before. But it depends on the khanate. Between 1747- 95 however, Persia did not exist, and some of the khanates were even under Ottomans. Abdulnr 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your take on the issue. Can you comment about name convention? Thanks. Fad (ix) 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I proposed as you see - Azeri Kizilbash (which means Shia) Turks as opposed to Ottomans so it becomes clear for you. The Problem with saying Persian or Azerbaijani is that this places it out of historic context. nesimi 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bakikhanov is quite objective - he is writing from 18century prospective not from modern point of view and wrote extensively in Persian.

The population of the khanate was predominantly Azeri. See the article from Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, according to it even during Russian rule population of both city and uyezd was predominantly Azeri, even after massive resettlement of Armenian people from Persia. [2] This is not disputed even by Armenian sources:

A Russian–Armenian Nucleus

One of the clauses of the treaty of Turkmen-chai of the previous year had laid down that inhabitants of Persian Azerbaijan – and the clear implication was that this referred to Armenians – would be accorded a period of a year ‘in order to transport themselves freely with their families from Persian states into Russian states’. Leading Armenian figures had requested the inclusion of this clause. The intention was to create a nucleus of Armenians in the newly conquered Russian Armenia, which at the time had a Tatar majority (due mainly to Shah Abbas’s transfer of much of the Armenian population from the Ararat plain and surrounding region in 1605). This nucleus was created by emigration from Persia, and strengthened by a further influx from Ottoman Turkey; its value should be balanced against the loss of Armenians from their native lands. At the time it seemed a sound policy; the notion of political liberation of land was alien to a people who felt themselves to be a non-territorial religious community. It was also entirely secondary to the business of freeing the people, and creating for them an environment in which they could live and work without oppressive discrimination. [3] Grandmaster 10:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to source this than we are also going to cite why and how. The word Azeri is not going to be on this article no matter what!--Eupator 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean - sounds pretty harsh, Grandmaster supplied a good source abdulnr 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

About the 'Persian rule', here's some useful information from a 1906 source:

Where the Armenians were most cruelly persecuted was in South-Eastern Transcaucasia, which was then ruled by Tartar khans or princes under the nominal suzerainty of Persia. The chief khanates were those of Baku, Derbent, Shemakha, Nukha, Erivan, Nakhitchevan, and Ghanja (Elizavetpol).

http://armenianhouse.org/villari/caucasus/armenians-tartars.html Parishan 11:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

lol now we're using Armenian sources? It doesn't matter who the actual khans were. We know they were Tatars and not Persians. Any map of the era will show the region as part of Iran.--Eupator 01:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I should probably have started a new discussion. I brought this source to the attention of those who claim that the rulers of the Erivan Khanate were ethnic Persians (Khosrow II and others). As for your comment, they were not "Tatar." Tatars are an ethnic group in Central Russia. Tartar, on the other hand (as it is spelled in the source), was how Western scholars erroneously referred to some Turkic-speaking ethnic groups, Azeris being among them. Parishan 11:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

During the existence of the Erivan khanate, its population consisted primarily of Persians (settled largely around the capital), Azerbaijanis (both settled and seminomadic), and Kurds (largely nomadic).[1] it is very "interesting" information. because the closest region to Erevan with Persian population it was and is now - Tehran and Gazvin - several hundreds km's distance. so from where Erevan khanate had Persian population? may be they were transported with helicopters? it's an absurde. Somebody didn't want say: ok, guys, sorry but Erivan Khanate was Azeri feudal stat as many other like Nakhichevan, Maku, Gandja etc... It is just politic, but not science...sorry.

Deportation

Can anyone cite documents related to deportation of Armenians in 1605? A massive scale, small scale. PLease provide a source to satisfy my curiosity. Regards abdulnr 14:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster cited Christopher J. Walker. You can get tons of sources via google as well. It was a mass deportation of almost all Armenians to Persia. Here's another one, which mentions earlier deportations by Safavids as well: http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0342.shtml Some of these Armenians only returned to their lands during the Russian liberation. The diasporans in Iran are the descendants of those that remained in Persia. --Eupator 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. abdulnr 23:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Khanate = state/kingdom, and was independent albeit sometimes nominally

Here are some good quotes from a military historian John Baddeley, which clarifies and reinforces the usage/translation of the word "khanate" as a "state" and not mere principality, as well as on the fact that at times (indeed, until 1804), Erivan khanate was independent from Iran. There are several more detailed quotes on how Eirvan was conquered, how brave and energetic the Khan of Erivan was, how he was sometimes victorious in his battles against Russia, etc.

"In 1804 Tsitsianoff, with about 10,000 men and 20 guns, marched on Erivan, another nominally independent khanate at that time actually threatened by a Persian army, but, for once, failed." (John F. Baddeley, "The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus", London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1908, p. 68)

"Potto sums up Tsitsianoff's achievements and character as follows: "In the short time he passed there (in Transcaucasia) he managed to completely alter the map of the country. He found it composed of minutely divided, independent Muhammadan States leaning upon Persia, namely, the khanates of Baku, Shirvan, Shekeen, Karabagh, Gandja, and Erivan, to which must also be added the territory of the Djaro-Bielokani Lesghians, the pashalik of Akhaltsikh, and the Turkish fortresses situated on the shores of the Black Sea." (ibid., pp. 71-72)

"Russia by this instrument [Gulistan Treaty of 1813 - ed.] was confirmed in possession of all the khanates -- Karabagh, Gandja, Shekeen, Shirvan, Derbend, Kouba, and Baku, together with parts of Talish and the fortress of Lenkoran. Persia further abandoned all pretensions to Daghestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, Imeretia, and Abkhasia." (ibid., p. 90) --AdilBaguirov 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Use Talk Page Before Editing

Adil you really need to stop and think for a little. Don't you think adding that kind of information to the article without discusson, without references would be reverted back???? Next time don't tell me that I don't use the discussion page when your doing it the same thing. ROOB323 09:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's it, I'm tired of this, and reporting both of you -- you have removed: 1) stub about this page being part of Azerbaijan related pages; 2) that Erivan khanate was an Azerbaijani state and was nominally independent at times, and at other times fully independent; that 3) khanate is not a principality, but a state or kingdom; and 4) that along with all Armenians, all Jews and all Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Kurds and Persians) were deported by Shah Abbas. All this has been discussed on other relevant pages, sometimes at length, plus several quotes were provided. --AdilBaguirov 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead report me I don't give a shit anymore and report what I said in here also because I don't give a damn anymore I am sick and tierd of this shit. People come here and contribute, but fuckers like you come here and fuck up everything. ROOB323 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this suppressing information? the diffs are evidence. Artaxiad 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad has been frequently found to purging damaging references, including the above one by ROOB323, today. I have restored it, for at least as long as ArbCom is going. After that, only myself, ROOB323 or admins have the moral authority to remove this disparaging attack. If you are so disturbed by this personal attack, you should express that to ROOB, and not try to quietly remove it. --AdilBaguirov 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My removal has nothing to do with your references as long as the diff is there it is evidence. Artaxiad 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as ArbCom goes on, references should stay in their original form, and that should apply to all pages on Wikipedia. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry when was this rule enforced? my mistake. Artaxiad 06:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I added a quote, seems informative. Artaxiad 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: user Artaxiad (Nareklm) has just been found making a false statement, and deliberately misquoting! First off, the quote user Artaxiad provides is not on page 145, but page 149. Secondly, what he quotes is actually a FOOTNOTE, not the text itself, and is preceeded by the following actual comment by the author, John William Kaye: "The characteristic words of the Russian manifesto, announcing these events, are worth quoting: --"Obliged to pursue enemy..." (the full page is available here [4]) In other words, what Artaxiad (Nareklm) has quoted, is not the words of Mr. Kaye, but the statement of the Russian manifesto -- which was written by an ethnic Armenian, Col. Lazarev -- his role in Turkmenchay Treaty and the Russian-Iranian-Azerbaijani war of 1826-1828 is well documented by Sergey Glinka in his 1831 book, published in the Lazarev's Institute (which I also have). It is very unfortunate, that not only Artaxiad does not provide a correct bibliographic citation for the quote, getting wrong the page number, and not providing details of the publishing house, place of publication, year of publication, etc., but also resorts to a blatant misquotation attempt by falsely attributing the sentence not to its original author -- an ethnic Armenian Colonel Lazarev writing the Russian manifesto -- but to the British author Kaye. And all this while disregarding other presented quotes and evidence on the Talk page, and reverting the correct edits performed by myself designed to NPOV the article -- i.e., mention that along with all Armenians, all Jews and Muslims were resettled by Shah Abbas, etc. Very, very sad that some editors stop at nothing. --AdilBaguirov 10:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It was from the book go search, books.google.com Artaxiad 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everything is pretty clear and evident here, no need to play innocent dumbfounded angel here. You've manipulated evidence, by deliberately misquoting Mr. Kaye to present a sentence from a Russian manifesto, written by an ethnic Armenian, as the opinion of Mr. Kaye! You have provided a false attribution and a false citation to the page, as well as no other required information such as year and place of publication, and publishing house. Restore my edits immediately and remove your misquoted and misattributed sentence. Also tell your friend ROOB323 to stop revert warring once and for all. --AdilBaguirov 11:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Baguirov, I lost count of all the personal attacks in your response above. If you think there is a mistake in the attribution correct it and add the right name.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I got my quote straight from Books.google.com, I don't know what Adil is talking about there were two of the same books i chose the second one, its the right page also, the quote is seen on two pages. Artaxiad 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Heres the exact page and quote where I got it from, [5] Artaxiad 15:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Erivan

There are many references to "Erivan" khanate, including the one from Armenian scholar Bournoutian, not a single one calling it "Yerevan khanate" though. Please, provide justification for the edit removing the historical spellings and discuss them on the page. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the article to reflect the fact that Azerbaijanis did not exist before the 20th c. I don't think the alternate spellings are notable, or even verifiable.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct name is Erivan khanate. And since Azerbaijani language was the language of the majority of population, including the rulers of khanate, it needs to be mentioned. Grandmaster (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think "EREVAN" is the most correct version.I do want to change the article according to Iranica Article about the Khanate (and some additional sources) , but since according to some conflicts between Armanian and Azeri editors , that seems difficult to find the most proper edition, I did not change anything until now.If other editors what to change the article , the above mentioned source is a good one. Thank you . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see what I did became reverted. Yes, there is several ways to spell modern name for Yerevan. Problem is that Yerevan is in Armenian. The persian spelling is originally from Ilkhanid times and we see diverse spelling like Airavan, Irevan, Erevan and much more. The spelling used by EI is one I adopted. I thought it would be easy just to say Yerevan, but seems people are upset. I know Encyclopedia of Islam (English and Turkish version) will have articles about this and also the book by the American scholar Bournotian as someone above mentioned. His work is considered the most important work and most authorative on the topic and is a big book opposed to several page article in iranian encyclopedia. Also, anyone who studies this state will affeliate it with nothing but Persian empire of Safavids and Qajars and anyone between,. I studied bournoutian book beofre and he spends a lot to explain about ethnic groups of persians, kurds, armenians, and Turkic tribes (dozens!) with specific names and islaimc denominations, I think Qizil Bash, Qara Qoyunli (tribe name, not to be confused with famous states and organization associated with names), these Turkic people were not referred to as Azeris, but muslim tribesmen. I will get book soon and cite explanation for this. I understand and I share your sincere love to own people, its history and culture, but this has no any relation to modern republic of azerbaijan.24.24.200.113 (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)