|WikiProject Georgia (country)||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Iran||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Toumanoff as a reliable source
From my dispute with Christopher Buyers (the owner of the Royal Ark) four years ago:
- As I understand, a standart Western reference for Caucasian families is Toumanoff, a collector of genealogical fantasies and an enemy of any serious research. You may take a look at the Table 41 of 'Les dynasties de la Caucasie chretienne' to assess the quality of his information. Toumanoff represents there twelve consecutive generations in a span of 100 years without any trace of doubt. His detailed account of the early kings of Iberia and their descent from Achaemenids is perhaps the most shameless genealogical falsification since that abbot who proclaimed Clovis a descendant of Emperor Claudius.
- Fair enough. The first citation from a work of Toumanoff explicitly mentions that it's his opinion in the main text, without arguing for or against its validity. While it could be expanded, there'd need to be dissenting views in the literature to warrant a rebuttal. This only leaves the first sentence of the ==Early Chosroids== section needing a less controversial source. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that Toumanoff’s assertions are sometimes premature or even dubious, we cannot dismiss the author just because one of the fellow Wikipedians self-confidently considers him "a collector of genealogical fantasies and an enemy of any serious research". Here’s the quote from the most prolific living Western scholar of medieval Caucasia who is, AFAIK, fluent in Russian and Georgia, and frequently refers to the historians from the former Soviet Union:
- Toumanoff’s meticulous, well-documented publications are grounded first and foremost upon the total contemporary record. Yet, as is especially evident in his landmark Studies in Christian Caucasian History (1963), he drank plentifully from the fount of scholarship and engaged the researches of the specialists singled out here in addition to many others. The genius of Toumanoff was his adeptness at blending synthesis with his own original contributions while never losing sight of contemporary sources, both indigenous and foreign. Though he was not infallible, any serious investigation of pre-modern Caucasia must come to terms with Toumanoff’s extraordinary scholarship.
The article states: "Presumably of Iranian origin and a branch of the Mihranid House". However every Western source (including the Cambridge history of Iran) identifies them as Iranian origin of Mihranid house. It seems that sometimes the USSR writing (for local nation building consumption) was geared towards hiding the Iranian origin of many dynasties in Caucasian Albania, Armenia and Georgia. Of course I am not denying that these dynasties took up the local culture and became partially or fully Geoergified/Armenianized. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding their Iranian or Georgian origin
Ehsan Yarshater (Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 : The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9., p. lviii) confirms as well that the Chosroids were a branch of the House of Mihran, and thus of Iranian descent, apart from quite a lot of other sources I found. I wonder if anyone would like to investigate more together with me about the exact origin of the Chosroids?
- Hello @LouisAragon: I'd support expanding of the origins sections if there are any additional sources over Chosroids origins. Chosroids origin from Mihranid house is already mentioned in the section though. Jaqeli 09:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I rewrote parts of this article. An easy dig showed that in fact most academics/historians consider them a branch of the Mihranids. I added 6 more academics/historians to the article that attest to this, namely Yarshater (1983), Rapp (2003), Lang (1971), Pourshariati (2008), Hussey (1966), Lenski (2003), Badakjian & La Porta (2014). Melikishvili, a Soviet historian, is literally the only one who openly doubts their Mihranid origins. Funnily enough, the article priorly stated the matter as if it all was some kind of "disputed" matter between most academics, and that there actually was some kind of animo amongst them regarding the denial of their Mihranid origins, even though its literally only Melikishvili. Per WP:UNDUE, I removed him. Also, numerous highly accredited historians and scholars mention them as the "Iberian Mihranids" or "Mihranids of Iberia", therefore I added this alternate name to the lede as well. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)