Talk:Sahl Smbatean

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Armenia Sahl Smbatean is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Can someone give me the rational on placing this in History of Azerbaijan? I don't get to understand why. Anatolmethanol 21:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, probably because of Shaki. Anatolmethanol 02:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Dowsett, I don't find the relevent section where he says he was Albanian. Can someone quote? Anatolmethanol 03:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any answers? Anatolmethanol 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was the ruler of Caucasus Albania.Hajji Piruz 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolmethanol, refer to the article by C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:

"Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh." Atabek 00:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahl actually probably was Armenian. The source you are referring to simply says that he was an Albanian prince (i.e Prince of Albania), which is true.Hajji Piruz 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the page, but you misquoted it, which changed the entire meaning, this is the actual quote: ...three Albanian princes: Atrenerseh, lord pf Xaçen, Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Sake, and...

The source is actually claiming him to be Armenian, as Smbat was Armenian, so obviously should his son. Please next time be more careful when quoting. Do you have another source which does not claim him to be Armenian because this one actually claims him to be one. Regards. Anatolmethanol 06:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the footnote on page 462 of Dowsett's article, referring to an Armenian author Daghbaschean, says:

Daghbaschean takes Sahl to be the son of the contemporary generalissimo of Armenia, Smbat Bagratuni; this is completely without foundation and his surprise that "Sahl is nowhere called the son of Smbat the Generalissimo but merely the son of Smbat" is wholly unjustified. Smbat is hardly an uncommon name in Armenian history

So, this basically means that Sahl was NOT the son of Smbat Bagratuni. As for Smbat not being an uncommon name in Armenian history, this name was also known in Albania and is even used in contemporary Azerbaijan, with historian Professor Sumbatzade being just one example. Similarly, many other names in Armenian history were also used or originated in other countries, not to say that many Armenian names today have clearly Turkish, Persian and/or Arabic roots, such as Kocharian, Chilingarian, Vazirian, Arzumanian, etc. and even Daghbaschean (cited above). In conclusion, nowhere does Dowsett say that Sahl was Armenian. Minorsky's reference in Caucasica IV (p. 506) completely closes the issue by saying: "Exact origin of Sahl is not explicitly stated". Minorsky also cites a Georgian chronicle, according to which Sahl's predecessors might have come from Taron in Georgia, but Dowsett also specifically dismissed this Taron reference, and added Arcruni and John Catholicos that Sahl was an Albanian prince. Atabek 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say he was Armenian. How do you know that Sunbat was Armenian? The best source on this issue is the article by Minorsky. I suggest you read it first. And the source quoted by Atabek does say that Sahl was Albanian. Grandmaster 07:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how this supports your point, if anything you admits that the source you have provided in the article does not claim him to be Albanian, claiming that Dowsett does not say he is Armenian does not mean he claims he is Albanian. If anything he is using the source which claims him to be Armenian. Also, I wonder why you have not bolded the rest. I mean, you have used a misquote to support it while the quote itself place it as the son of Smbat. And I am amazed that Grandmaster is questioning that Smbat was Armenian. Is he serious? (if he is, he could check Minorsky p.511, who calls him Armenian King, but I didn't know that even this was debated) I also fail to see how modern Azerbaijani uses of the term has any relevency here, neither your exemples, that's original research and is not allowed. Family name and first name are not the same thing.

Further, you are misinterpreting what Minorsky is saying, what he means is that the true lineage of Sahl is not known, the end of the short paragraph is explicit: ...and is likely to refer to the home of Sahl's ancestors. Minorsky actually concludes it by relating to what was reported on the deportation of Armenian kings, which included Sahl. Neither Dowsett neither Minorsky contradict the wide range of sources placing him as Armenian, to the contrary. Do you have another source? Anatolmethanol 14:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett clearly spelled it out saying Sahl, son of Smbat, was one of the three ALBANIAN princes, on page which is quoted in the article. And Smbat was not the first name of Sahl, hence the reference to similar usage of Turkish/Persian/Arabic names by Armenians is also quite relevant, not to say that names like Robert carried by some Armenians don't absolutely mean that Robert is an Armenian name.

So far the evidence presented, clearly shows that NEITHER Dowsett NOR Minorsky claimed that Sahl ibn Sunbat was Armenian. Both concur however, that Sahl ruled in Albania, with Dowsett further calling him Albanian prince. Hence, your referral to other sources to support your claim might be needed. Thanks. Atabek 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to put the caps on, I can read. Let me repeat this. The uses of Albanian princes is meant to say the princes of Albania. The source in question say the son of Smbat, who is Armenian. I doubt you will find a source which will claim that Smbat was not Armenian. When you word that that he was either Albanian or Armenian, it mislead the reader into believing that he was either ethnically Armenian or ethnically Albanian. When we say Armenian we mean ethnically, while here Albanian is used as in 'prince of Albania.' I think it makes a differences. He was one of the princes of Albania, but sources place him as Armenian. You claim that neither does Dowsett nor Minorsky claim him to be Armenian. I tend to disagree there for several reason. First, the quote you have used to claim him to be ethnically Albanian was in fact a misquote, the actual quote does place him as Armenian. Smbat being Armenian, his son would be Armenian. Dowsett on the other hand, in the footnote explicitly say that it is not because his name was Smbat that it meant that he was his son, since the name Smbat was not uncommon for an Armenian. So if anything, both do make suggestions on him being ethnically Armenian and does not contradict the rest of the sources which support the position that he was Armenian. So, having said that, I don't see how Doswett could be used to claim him to be ethnically Albanian. Please explain. Anatolmethanol 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Smbat was Armenian? Do you have any sources to attest to that? Armenian king Smbat mentioned on page 511 as murdered in 914 was not Sahl's father. --Grandmaster 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood my point, possible neither what Dowsett wanted to say here. I know it is not the same Smbat, I was talking about Smbat Bagraduni, I gave the exemple from Minorsky of a following rule, to show Smbat is Armenian. You have to interprete what I said in light of Dowsett point in the footnote. Let me explain, it is claimed that Sahl was the son of Smbat, which people assumed to be Smbat Bagraduni. In the footnote, Dowsett say that it is not as if Smbat was that rare a name for Armenians and for this reason it does not mean that the source is talking about the Bagraduni. Smbat is actually an Armenian name, for the Sahl to claim the trone of Albania or Georgia he had to change his name, because Smbat is Armenian but its Albanian or Georgian version when written in latin alphabet has an 'u'. The reason why the Armenian version is written Smbat is because there is another later, the 'et' in Armenian which is left out in the transliteration. In all his works Dowsett actually leave that letter out not only for Smbat. Dowsett never denies, but actually confirms the Smbat in question was Armenian, but claims that it was not necessarly the Bagraduni. Anatolmethanol 16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot base your assertion on the name only. Vakhtang is Georgian name, and one of Albanian prinices bore it. But it does not necessarily mean that he was Georgian. Sahl is Arabic name, but again it does not mean that he was Arab. We know that Sahl ruled Shaki, and Minorsky writes:

West of Sharvan was situated Qabala, with a mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian prince. In the west it bordered on Shakki, also with a Christian dynasty. The origins of the princes of Qabala and Shakki are little known, but in view of constant intermarriage we have to assume their manifold links with the princes of the right bank.

The footnote to this passage says:

It is quite possible that the Mihranids at times controlled the left bank of the Kur. One of their descendants Hamam (Grigor), son of Adernerseh (a contemporary of Muhammad Afshin, 889-901), Moses, iii, ch. 22 (trans. 278) says that he spread his sway “on to the other side”, i.e. apparently to the left bank of the Kur.

So the origin of Sahl is quite obscure, probably heavily mixed. --Grandmaster 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not my assertions, they're taken as established fact by Dowsett and is not rejected by scholarly works. Dowsett translations all left the et down(which is understandable, because there are no latin equivalent), it is not a misplacement, because the 'et' is replaced with an u for Albanian and Georgian names. The specificity is not on the name, but the way it is written. Anatolmethanol 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see why you have quoted the above. The point is? Anatolmethanol 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided with references above:

1. With Dowsett dismissing that Sahl ibn Sunbat (or Smbat) is the son of Smbat Bagratuni of Armenia.

2. With Dowsett attesting that he was an Albanian prince (exactly as spelled not prince of Albania but Albanian prince)

3. With Minorsky attesting to the fact that Smbat's origins are not known

Again Smbat in Albanian and Armenian was spelled the same way, not with "n". "N" is the spelling of his name in Arabic sources. In fact, even in contemporary Azeri, it's Sumbat not Sunbat.

We are yet to see your references to say that Smbat was ethnically Armenian, citing a page and a precise quote, please, aside from just saying "he was Armenian". Please, provide those sources, just like I did above, before we may proceed in further discussion. Thanks. Atabek 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that everyone by the name of Smbat is Armenian cannot be accepted. It is OR and simply not logical. As for the quote, Minorsky says that the origins of the princes of Shakki are little known, and we know that Sahl was prince of Shaki, and Minorsky also says that he could be related to Mihranids who were Persian. Grandmaster 17:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the line “Smbat is hardly an uncommon name in Armenian history” does not mean that everyone by the name of Smbat was Armenian. It just means that there were more than one or two Smbats in the Armenian history, but it does not follow that every person with this name is Armenian. It is your personal interpretation. Grandmaster 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feal that this discussion is going nowhere and we're turning in circle. You should have searched the matter a little bit more before asking me sources. The article arleady contain sources about him being Armenian, while the source you provided does not support your assertions.

But here few more.

Babak refused the offer and went to Armenia to settle with a certain Sahl b. Sunbat in his castle. The latter betrayed him to the agents of al-Afshin. Also betrayed was the brother of Babak, Abd Allah. With the situation in the Jibal area so well in the hands of al-Afshin's the Armenian rulers had every reason to please their new powerful neighbour. Prelude to the GeneralsA Study of Some Aspects of the Regn of the Eighth Abbasid Caliph, Al ... Osman Sayyid Ahmad Ismail Al-Bili Garnet & Ithaca Press (2001) p.77

He calls him an Armenian ruler.

More.

He was handed to Afshin's troops by Sahl b. Sunbadh, an Armenian prince in 222/836-7 The Cambridge History of Iran. Par W B Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, J A Boyle, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Jackson, Lawrence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press (1968) p.506

...Babek took to flight and fell into the hands of Sahl b. Sonbat, the Armenian Patriarch who had him arrested while hunting. E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 Par M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, BRILL, (1993) p.547

...an Armenian prince called Sahl b. Sanbat,... Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board, Editors: -Oct. 1936, Marmaduke Pickthall; Jan. 1937- Oct. 1938, Muhammad Asad-Weiss. (1927) p. 23

Do those satisfy you? Or perhaps do you want more sources?

Comming to you three points, I don't think you read me carefully, those sources don't do what you claim. Dowsett does not dismiss him being Armenian, he actually suggest in his footnote him being Armenian. In fact, the only place in the entire paper where he relate to his ethnicity was on the footnote, where he say that Smbat is not such an uncommon name among Armenians to suggest that he was from the Bagraduni's. Your second point does not make sense, when Dowsett say he was an Albanian prince, he means the Prince of Albania not that he was Albanian by language or by ethnicity. Those years Albania was already Armenized. As for Minorsky, I have already repeated that Minorsky is talking about his lineage not his ethnicity. The end of the short paragraph makes it clear as he suggest a lineage.

To answer Grandmaster, Smbat is Armenian by any published sources. If you claim that it is not an Armenian name, then perhaps you are not that versed in the Subject. Dowsett present this as an established fact and which is not dismissed by anyone. The reason why it is the Armenian version of the name is because of the et missing in the latin transliteration while it is fully present for both Albanian and Georgian transliteration. In fact the Albanian version is Georgian influenced, because there is no et in Georgian, they rather use the u.

On your second point, you are not understand the context in which Dowsett said that, I thought it was clear. Read the text which is footnoted. Dowsett point was in relation to the claim that Smbat was not a Bagraduni, and in his footnote he claims that Smbat was not an uncommon name by Armenians. He is implicitly saying him to be Armenian. The Bagraduni's were Armenian, and he say that it is not as if Smbat is that an uncommon name among Armenians to assume that he is Bagraduni. Nowhere have you nor Atabek provided any explicit source nor anything contradicting with the claim that Sahl was Armenian. Sources which does not say explicitly the ethnicity can not be used to dismiss what scholarly works by the large claim. It is like using a source which does not say that the current president of Armenia is ethnically Armenian to be used to claim he may not be in parallel to another source which says he is. In any case, I don't see what Atabek and your problem is. I want to expend the article, but if we can't even settle on the ethnicity of the person even though both of you have provided no source to substenciate both of your positions I don't see how I can improve this article. Anatolmethanol 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, your new edits are misinterpreting sources even further. I don't get to understand why you are so pressed to remove any mention to Armenia or Armenians. Care to explain? Anatolmethanol 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolmethanol, this is a summary of my new edits [1], please, show me item by item, where did I remove the words Armenia or Armenians? Please, assume good faith. Thanks. Atabek 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You pushed the Armenian mention further down. I am still waiting any sources which does not present Albanian as in Albania but rather as an ethnic group. Anatolmethanol 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix, Smbat might be an Armenian name, but again it does not follow that everyone who bears that name is Armenian. I already cited examples, Vakhtang is Georgian name, yet some Albanian princes bore it. Khosrow is Persian name, yet some Armenians had this name. You cannot make such assertions just on the basis of the name. And second, no one denies that Sahl (which is Arabic name, btw) could be Armenian, we just add that he could also be Albanian. This info is sourced, why is it such a problem to admit alternative version of his origin? --Grandmaster 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming nothing, Dowsett is saying just this. The footnote makes it clear that he is saying he was Armenian. Bring any third party editor he will confirm it. The footnote is used to support that he was not a Bagradid, he say that Smbat was not that uncommon a name for Armenians. And not, actually Smbat was only used by Armenians, in other languages the et is replaced by an u. The et can not be replaced in latin alphabet the silence between two consonant is used as the 'et', this is why some write S'mbat. Dowsett present this as absolute truth, in fact nowhere does he question it. He translated a large junk of materials and not once does he question this. Neither I, nor you could dismiss this. Anatolmethanol 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone assume good faith. Based on the leading scholars, Sahl was Armenian. One does not make up their mind simply by picking and choosing sources that only agree with them. The majority of the sources that I checked, included the ones cited in this article, some of the biggest names in the field, say he was Armenian. The quotes are not necessary, so I took them out. Also, Minorsky states that Sahls origins are not known, not his ethnicity. Minorsky refers to Sahl as an Armenian, saying that he was part of the deportation of Armenian princes.Hajji Piruz 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The top Western expert on Caucasian Albania was CJF Dowsett, who translated Movses Kalankatuaci's "History of the Country Aluank" into English, and was also, by the way, a Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies at Oxford. Bosworth was NOT an expert on Caucasian Albania at all.Atabek 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz, the claims of consensus must be referenced info. You cannot say that most of scholars stick to such and such opinion without providing a source for such claim, it would be an OR. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Claims_of_consensus. Grandmaster 09:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have seen no sources saying that say that Sahl was Albanian other than sources that simply say he was a prince of Albania or an Albanian prince (much like they say that the Shah Abbas was a Persian King).Hajji Piruz 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a dubious tag because the Dowsett quote is being interpreted rather than it actually being what Dowsett wanted it to be.Hajji Piruz 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never does Dowsett say that he was Albanian by ethnicity. The work analyzes a translation of an Armenian text. Those works are specialized, they are not to be read by someone who ignores the subject or the historical background of the region.

By the early eighth century, most of Albania had come under the rule of the caliphate, and a process of Islamization of the population began, which continued under the regional dynasties of the Sheddadids and Maziadids. A number of potentates in the Transcaucasus — Armenian, Georgian, and Muslim — all continued to lay claim to the kingship of Albania until the twelfth century, although for all intents and purposes, Caucasus Albania had passed into history by the ninth century. (An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James Stuart, Olson Greenwood Press (1994) p.27

This is the background history of the period, which anyone who read Dowsett's specialized papers (translations of Armenian texts and analysis) should know, and he guesses that they do know. It is quite easy to manipulate texts with terms... It has to be understood in the light of the background history. Sahl, for instance, was an Armenian who assumed the title of ruler of Albania. The footnote is --Daghbaschean takes Sahl to be the son of the contemporary generalissimo of Armenia, Smbat Bagratuni; this is completely without foundation and his surprise that "Sahl is nowhere called the son of Smbat the Generalissimo but merely the son of Smbat" is wholly unjustified. Smbat is hardly an uncommon name in Armenian history-- assumes that the reader knows already that he is Armenian.

But the fact that you have removed in your first quotation the word son suggest that you knew that this would have made a lot of differences in the interpretation. It can not be only a misquote because you did not only remove son; you actually replaced the word.

Also, your assumption on what Minorsky is saying about his origin is wrong. As Fadix has stated, the paragraph in which Minorsky uses that word leaves no doubt that he is talking about the genealogy. Dowsett also raises it when he writes: Apart from minor details (from the linguistic point of view its support for the form patgos is welcome), it implies a reasonable date for the death of Khalid, gives us a plausible genealogy for the prince Sahl i Smbatean whose origin has hitherto been obscure,... (p.468) The quote is refreshing right? What more? He calls the prince Smbatean. He calls him by his Armenian name. The reason why he translated it to Smbatean and not Smbatian is because in Armenian, Armenian endings are not written with an i but the yetch, which is translated in historic documents as e rather than i His name's ending is Armenian. But obviously, since both of you are not editing in good faith, it is reasonable to assume that there is nothing which will prevent the distortion of the whole thing just to make the word Armenian disappear or to merely present it as an opinion. -- Davo88 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you did not notice this above. Here is quote again:

C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:

"Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."

ean is not only Armenian suffix for names, many Iranians have names ending with "ian" as well. Thanks. Atabek 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most(but not all) ians in Persian are traditionally Armenian. Smbat is an Armenian name; the Georgians have Sunbat, with the n inclining a little bit on the m, and the Persians do not have Smbat. You are misquoting again! ...three Albanian princes: Atrenerseh, lord pf Xaçen, Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Sake... Both Smbat and ean makes it indisputably Armenian(and Dowsett in his footnote present it as if the reader knows this). Stop distorting please, Dowsett's interest in Albanian history is taken by him as part of Armenian history. It is convenient for both you and Grandmaster to use Armenian scholars (Dowsett is Armenian), specialist in Armenian history, but dismiss them when they do not agree with your position. Albania's fall was final. In the 9th century, Armenians already managed to consolidate their power and restored the Kingdom of Armenia (Encyclopedia of Soviet Law Par Ferdinand Joseph Maria Feldbrugge BRILL (1985) p.455). Grandmaster claimed in his answer to Tigran an evidence that there was no Armenia in 9th century - one of his many distortions. Albania was only a geographic location claimed by Persians, Arabs, Georgians, Armenians at the time of Sahl. Western Albania was a satellite state of Armenia, with him as one of its rulers. So yes, he was an Albanian prince. If we claim Karabakhians, we imply in the current situation that they are Armenians. It's because we know the background history, we do not forge an ethnicity - the Karabakhians - to claim that they are not Armenian. But again, continuously replacing the word son and changing Smbat to Sunbat (Georgian equivalent) only shows that you still refuse to stop POV pushing while knowing that I am correct. -- Davo88 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett does not say that Sahl was Albanian Atabek, thats simply your interpretation. Yes, Sahl was an Albanian prince, but this does not mean he was Albanian himself. Albanian prince in this context means a prince of Albania. Philip the Arab was also Roman Emperor, but he was not Roman (Italian) in descent.Hajji Piruz 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. The text says “Albanian prince”, we quote it as it is. Let the reader judge. Personal interpretations are not allowed. Grandmaster 07:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is your claim that he was Albanian. VartanM 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, I only add sourced info. Do you agree that Dowsett calls Sahl an "Albanian prince"? Whatever he meant by that should be left to the reader to judge, we should only quote the source and keep any interpretations to ourselves. Grandmaster 07:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source calls him Albanian prince not prince of Albanian descent. The current version of the article calls him Albanian not prince of Albania.VartanM 08:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source says “Albanian prince”, not “prince of Albania”. We should quote the source exactly as it says. Grandmaster 09:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest about this sentence? "others believe he was Albanian[8]". Thats OR. VartanM 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Sources refer to him either as Armenian or Caucasian Albanian prince? Grandmaster 07:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time (lets not overestimate hope)

...Albania rapidly became culturally Armenized, especially after the twenty districts of the Armenian principalities... (Dictionary of the Middle Ages by Strayer, Joseph Reese, 1904-, Scribner (1983) p.123

Over time its upper classes were effectivelly Armenized. The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context Westview Press, (1992) p.486

The exact origins of Sahl are not known. He is talking about his genealogy, not his ethnicity, Dowsett will be making the same comment.

Some sources state that he was an Armenian, while others believe he was Albanian is awkward, misleading, illogical, inaccurate, etc. It is like saying: Some sources state that he was an Armenian, while others believe he was Karabakhian. In the actual context, this is not a contradiction. Dowsett already claims him to be Armenian, and uses the word Albanian as someone would be using the word Karabakhian. Dowsett's Armenian in his footnote is as if those to whom he is addressing know about it already, and it leaves no doubt. Doubts that remains on what exactly he meant are answered by the rest of the scholarly works. Already, in the introduction of Dowsett's paper The Albanian Chronicale of Mxit'ar Gos, before developping his subject, he assumes you know the background, since he writes: The land of the Aluank' or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence. (p.472) He is developing it as if he is developing a part of Armenian history, because those are the first lines of the paper.

Accuracy would require that we write that he was an Armenian ruler of parts of Caucasian Albania. This is what accuracy requires, both of you have still not provided any material substantiating your claim. The wording both of you suggest doesn't even need substantiation, it's wrong no matter what... It assumes and implies a contradiction between both positions, this is what the while does. But I won't try any more, this is why I'd rather contribute in the Armenian Wikipedia for such articles... I refuse to be halted by users who assume article ownership and refuse to stand corrected. -- Davo88 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it says "Albanian Prince" but this does not mean that Sahl was Albanian. This means that he was simple a prince of Albania. Philip the Arab was referred to as a Roman Emperor, yet this does not mean he was of Roman descent, he was of Arab descent.Hajji Piruz 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz lets not get the Roman's involved :), there are way to many involved nationalities already, Lets just change Philip the Arab with another Roman Emperor Leo V, Now was he Armenian? Roman? Greek? Assyrian? One thing is for sure he was a Roman Emperor just like Sahl ibn Smbat was prince of Albania. VartanM 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Davo it is your personal interpretation that Albanian prince was meant as prince of Albania. The fact is that Dowsett calls him an "Albanian prince". Therefore no one can deny that Sahl was referred to as Albanian prince and this should be reflected in the article. No personal interpretations are allowed. --Grandmaster 07:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you got it all wrong, you can not use a lack of clarification as default to maintain a position. When a considerable amount of material was presented, you're still stuck on Dowsett. Editors have reasonably answered that Dowsett was misinterpreted, and citations from him were presented as evidence. This was also confirmed by providing materials from other sources. So the burden is on your side, to provide materials to support your position. I see nothing coming from you in this talkpage other than requesting a status quo on the actual wording, by sticking to on an imprecision which obviously is misleading, not to say plain wrong. Besides, knowing Dowsett as Armenian scholar, who's position was that Albania during those years was nothing more than a geographical region, who's inhabitants were Armenized. So in that context, I don't think given the amount of material presented, there can be any reasonable doubt to use Davo words, that your interpretation is not accurate. VartanM 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, he says "Albanian prince". No interpretations here, just an accurate quote from the source. We should only write what he says, and if you believe that he means something different that's your right, but we cannot remove the source or add any personal interpretations. All we can do is to quote Dowsett as saying that Sahl was an Albanian prince. You cannot dispute that he actually used these exact words, so there's no problem here. We can add any alternative versions as well for NPOV. Grandmaster 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he does not consider Albanians as an ethnicity for those years. He believes that native princes of Albania are Armenians. Here is a prior ancestory of the princeship lineage.

After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220)

On the other paper, he also considers a branch of Bagradids as Albanian. This is why he questions Smbat being the Smbat in question having killed his brother and having his son replace him. If you read this sentence, it is written word by word: native Armenian prince of Albania. VartanM 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a mistake. Haykazuni does not mean Armenian. Haykazuni/Haykazean means "descendant of Hayk". See this quote from Robert Hewsen, one of the top experts on Albania. He criticizes Armenian scholar Mnatsakanian, who claims that “Eastern Armenia, according to Movses Xorenac'i (1.121), formed the hereditary domains of the Princes of Siwnik', a house of Armenian origin”. And Hewsen says in his comment on that claim:

Actually, all Movses Xorenac'i asserts is that the House of Siwnik was of Haykid origin which, as Toumanoff has shown (Studies, 108, 216, 218, 222, 469), should be taken as meaning only that it was of immemorial origin; i.e. that it had been sovereign in Siwnik for so long that no one remembered its origin.

Hewsen, Robert H. Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40.

So Haykid/Haykazean only means that the origin of the dynasty was very old and people connected it with legendary figures that actually did not exist. Grandmaster 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is? Those are not my words, I have quoted from Dowsett translation. He translates it as Armenian. What Hewsen think of it is irrelevant, because my answer was concerning Dowsett not questioning that the Sahl was Armenian. Which you have still to answer. VartanM 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your quote does not say Sahl was Armenian. It is about a different person. --Grandmaster 06:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett already admited that he was Armenian in the footnote, this should have been settled by now. You did not get the quote above, you jumped on Haykazuni, when it really meant Armenian. Abi Ali was the full brother of Smbat Bagratuni, so Haykazuni here means Armenian. You provided Hewsen, when Hewsen doesn't even say anything remotely reassembling to the claim that a Haykazuni is not Armenian. formed the hereditary domains of the Princes of Siwnik', a house of Armenian origin. Mnatsakanian is claiming that Haykazuni meant that it was the house of Armenian origin, because Hayk from the mythologies is considered the first Armenian. To which Hewsen answers that it means very long, not that it was from that far. The souverain of Swinik were Armenians, no one disputes that. The point is that being native of Albania doesn't mean that one is ethnically Albanian, in Dowsett translation, the full brother of Smbat is an Albanian native, but is ethnically Armenian.

I don't understand why you are reviving this. Dowsett took it as a fact, that Sahl was Armenian. What is the point of this endless discussion? VartanM 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, you have been provided with Dowsett's sentence from "Neglected Passages..." article saying Sahl was one of three Albanian princes. Until you're able to deny the existence of this sentence, and until the reverts of the article by suspicious User:ArmeniaArmenia stop, I don't see how discussion can proceed in an NPOV and constructive manner. Albania was not an Armenian kingdom, it's well known that, unlike Armenian language of Indo-European family, Albanian language was of Ibero-Caucasian origin, and that Albanian Church was abolished only in 19th century by the Russian Czar. There is no name Vakhtang in Armenian historiography, that's the name of one of the princes of Khachen. Sahl is Arabic name, and Smbat is a name used even in modern Azerbaijan as Sumbat. The fact that it was not rare in Armenian history, does not mean it's Armenian name. Atabek 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular and endless discussion, Vartan, I don't think you need to reply here. By now, if he was contributing in good faith, he should've understood it. Armenian scholar, not as in Armenian scholar. I think this resumes the situation... no need to add more. I will be fixing this article in the near future. - Fedayee 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett never used a phrase: Sahl was Armenian. It is just your interpretation. You cannot find such a line in the text, however he clearly says that Sahl was Albanian. And Haykazuni does not necessarily mean Armenian either. See Hewsen/Toumanoff. Using socks to revert the article is not gonna help, I suspect banned user being involved here. I hope arbitrators will pay attention to what’s going on here. --Grandmaster 14:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that article should be fixed but not by using socks--Dacy69 16:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I rv'ed new editor. Current version accomodate both version.--Dacy69 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dacy69, unless you have proof that the new user is a sock, please mind the WP:BITE--VartanM 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pdnbtn.png

According to Vartanm's quote, Dowsett uses Haykazuni and Armenian equivalently. Also he calls the brother of Smbat as Armenian and prince of Albania and Sahl ibn Smbat was the son of Smbat. Ibn simply means "son" in Arabic and other languages of the Near East: [2]

Dowsett uses Sahl Smbatian so this is the same as son of Smbat. Dowsett says: "Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni". So with this quote, prince of Albania/Albanian prince and etc. does not denote ethnicity but geography. The Qajar kings have been called Persian kings by many writers but they were Turkomen.Hajji Piruz 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting Hewsen... Vartan already explained above. Hewsen is not saying that Haykazuni does not mean Armenian, he is answering an Armenian scholar who thinks that since it means descendant of Hayk, it would mean the house of Armenian origin (from the first descendant), from where Armenians allegedly started. Hewsen, to that, answers that this is not what Haykazuni means but rather that it is so old that one can not remember. He is not questioning that a Haykazuni is an Armenian; he is just questioning a word by word interpretation of it. In fact, he can't because when the term is used is to describe lineage in regions outside of the geographic Albania. From Dowsett’s translation, the Sahl was born in Siunik, which was in Armenia, not Albania.

I don't think you have read Hewsen’s paper carefully, because he admits those regions were Armenian during those periods.

That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. Contrary to Bunjatov, there is no evidence that any of this literature was translated into Armenian from another language and his assertion that the Armenian Church caused the Albanian literature to be translated into Armenian and then had originals destroyed is a flight of facy. p. 34

To repeat myself, Hewsen is answering to the claim that since it means Hayk Descendents, it means that the place was originally Armenian. Hewsen claims that Mnac'akanyan, on the other hand, oversimplifies as well. He is certainly wrong in claiming that the lands between the Kur and the Arax were originally Armenian, and he, too, underestimates both the ethnic complexity of the region in question and how late the aborigines must have survived as distinct peoples, whether under Armenian or Albanian rule.

So, you have quoted out of context Hewsen, much like Dowsett is quoted out of context. Dowsett never denies that the Sahl was Armenian, in fact even Hewsen claims that on that spot, the Partav region, the so-called Albanians were Armenians, and Dowsett’s translation says the Sahl was from Siunik, plain in Armenia. Dowsett’s footnote also explains in his footnote, not to say he calls him from his Armenian name. Albanian does not mean ethnically Albanian, this has been explained to you by providing Dowsett’s own words supported by various other materials. Now would you please stop pushing us in a circular discussion? - Fedayee 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen says that Haykid does not mean Armenian, it just means very old. He refutes the claims of Armenian scholar that rulers of Siwnik were Armenian just because they were called Haykazean. He refutes Armenian origin of rules of Siwnik elsewhere in the text, read carefully his criticism of Movses Khorenatsi. Also, he clearly says that population of Artsax and Utik was originally Albanian. And nowhere in the text Dowsett says that Albanian is not a reference to the ethnicity and nowhere he calls Sahl Armenian. --Grandmaster 09:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, I can not understand how you can misinterpret every single author presented here. Hewsen does nothing such, the paper in question criticises two scholars, one Armenian, the other Azerbaijani. He never claims that it does not mean Armenian, he answers to the claim that the region surrounding Siwnik was from where Armenians come from, their native region. He is answering there to the erroneous use of the word to assume that it was from where Hayk comes from. He never questions that it means Armenian. And no, he does not say that the original people there were Albanian, he say that many people lived there, one of which will be founding an Albania.

As for Dowsett, you have yet to address his footnote, not that long ago, Atabek was on the other article saying that Armenian scholar does not mean ethnically Armenian and we are in the same situation. You are pulling my legs, the footnote reinterprets the sentence and you can ask any third party editor about that and he will say the same thing, please stop pushing us in a circular discussion. - Fedayee 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, show me a quote from Dowsett that says: Sahl was Armenian. Unless you do that, any claims that he says anything remotedly close to that are just your personal interpretations. However Dowsett says that Sahl was Albanian, and any interpretations aside this is what the article should say with the reference to that source, while providing for other points of view as well. And Hewsen clearly says that Haykid does not mean Armenian, it means so old that no one remembers the origins. We can ask third party opinion if you wish. --Grandmaster 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote is in bold because it's being repeated, and you're engaged in circular discussion.

"After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni"( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220). VartanM 16:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, it is really difficult to maintain my cool with your provocations. Was Dowsett an Armenian? Answer to this question, his biography presented in The Independent claims him to be an Armenian scholar. Was he Armenian? Prove that The Independent article is saying he was an English Brits. The article only says Armenian scholar. You are twisting things to your advantage forcing us in an endless circular discussion and then when someone doesn't justify his edit (like in Marshall's case) because he is not interested to be engaged in a worthless, senseless, endless discussion you report him. If on the other hand, the person does decide to discuss, it is a lost cause.

I will repeat it, in the intro of the paper; the author implies he is covering Armenian history, not Albanian, not Parthian, not Chinese, but Armenian. I will requote what Davo has quoted, those are the first lines of the paper: The land of the Aluank' or Caucasian Albania, whose geography and customs already attracted the attention of Strabo and Pliny, represents the easternmost part of the Armenian sphere of influence. He is covering the subject as part of Armenian history. He calls Smbat by his Armenian name, with the ian(ean) ending, does not call him Sunbat from the Georgian or Albanian name. And then explains to the claim that it was not Smbat Bagraduni, that the name is hardly uncommon in Armenian history.

To this adds, all the rest of the sources which merely teach the history of the region that one has to know to accurately interpret the piece, like when Hewsen says: That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. Contrary to Bunjatov, there is no evidence that any of this literature was translated into Armenian from another language and his assertion that the Armenian Church caused the Albanian literature to be translated into Armenian and then had originals destroyed is a flight of facy.

If you believe that someone is Azerbaijani, Armenian, Albanian by blood, this is your problem, but this is not a position maintained by historians, certainly not Dowsett. Sahl was from Siunik, outside the realm of Albania, the princeship lineage of Siunik and the Bagraduni are believed according to those lists to have been the same as those of Albania, Sahl should have had some blood relationship with the ancient princes of Albanian to claim the throne. Those are only blood justified claims for the throne, nothing more. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. Sahl was controlling a culturally Armenian place, he spoke Armenian with his subjects, the materials written during his ruling by his subjects from the region, were exclusively Armenian. He is claimed to be Armenian, period. If please, please, would you stop bringing this up again and over again? If you don't believe what I am saying is accurate, request a third opinion but obviously you are wrongly interpreting the sources. - Fedayee 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedayee, if the Dowsett says, Sahl ibn-Sunbat was Albanian prince, I don't know how many references do you need to know that Albanian prince means he wasn't Armenian. Because if he was Armenian, Professor Emeritus of Armenian Studies at Oxford, Prof. CJF Dowsett, would say so. I don't know for how long this POV/OR is going to be pushed, but both you and VartanM are yet to provide a single legitimate reference to deny that line by Dowsett. And I am not sure why you remove a sourced statement from the article by Dowsett and then complain for being reported. Atabek 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean when the term "Persian King" is used for people like Nader Shah and Shah Abbas? What does it mean when the term "Roman Emperor" is used for Philip the Arab?

Dowsett makes it clear that Sahl was Armenian.Hajji Piruz 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reference to line where Dowsett said that Sahl was Armenian. There are more than sufficient references to Turkish ethnicity of Nader Shah, Shah Ismail and Shah Abbas. You're yet to show me Dowsett reference, where he says Sahl was Armenian by ethnicity. So the comparison is simply irrelevant here. Atabek 01:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably start counting how many times I provided following reference.

"After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni"( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220). VartanM 01:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where does this line mention Sahl? And you were explained that Haykazuni does not mean Armenian according to other scholars. --Grandmaster 05:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sahl is the son of Smbat. That is why he is called Sahl ibn Smbat and Dowsett calls him Sahl Smbatian. Plus Dowsett is using Armenian and Haykazuni equivalently. This is beginning to be a waste of time for everyone involved. Most, if not all, sources call him Armenian, Dowsett makes it clear he was Armenian, etc...

No other sources have been presented that say Sahl was Albanian. I have taken the initiative to end this dispute by saying that he was an Albanian prince in the first sentence, while also making it clear that he was Armenian.Hajji Piruz 16:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smbat mentioned in that sentence is not Sahl's father. And again, see Hewsen for Haykazean. Also, as I told you before, the information that most of sources stick to a certain point of view should be sourced. I reworded the article according to the sources. Nothing was removed, only the wording was altered. Grandmaster 06:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. You have not presented any other source that says Sahl was Albanian, and you continuously stick to distorting Dowsett. We want to understand what Dowsett meant by Albanian prince. You are taking the meaning ethnically while others are taking it geographically. It is clear from Dowsett’s paper that is geographic because he is considering Albania as the eastern more portion of Armenian sphere of influence. And how do you know that is not the same Smbat? That is the same Smbat, since his brother is Abu Ali and his son is Sahl and he is given the designation Bagtaruni. Dowsett calls him Smbat I. On the next page of Dowsett (pg 223), he discusses the cooperation of Smbat I with Arabs. See note 1 on pg 223 where it also discusses the attack of Afshin on Smbat. There was only one Smbat at the time of Afshin ruling Caucasian Albania.Hajji Piruz 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, you had more than enough time and opportunity to provide an explicit source, while others besides you interpret Dowsett as not denying him being Armenian. VartanM 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek I welcome you to justify your addition of the tags in the talkpage. I left the OR tag out because every sentence in the article is referenced. VartanM 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should explain this [3] as well as your major disruption at Khachen, where you removed [4] the entire content of the article. The two discussions on the pages Talk:Khachen and this one are related.

You need to reinsert POV tags there as well, reverting yourself per explanation provided for the tag on talk page.Atabek 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it isn't my fault that Fadix's arguments made sense and yours did not. You are the one who's creating the dispute. Dowsett claimed him to be ethnically Armenian, in the intro he says that it is on the Eastern sphere of Armenian influence, and calls him by his Armenian name, and on the footnote implicitly tells him to be ethnically Armenian. I told you before to bring a third party editor, instead you pushed the argument into a circular never ending maze. The only possible explanation I can think of, is that the territory he controlled is now the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, and for political reasons you're mudding down his Armenian ethnicity. VartanM 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the sentence accordingly suites the article. --83.181.229.63 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett does not say that Sahl was Albanian.Hajji Piruz 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased again he says he is a albanian prince. Not sure if we should assume he was prince of Albania, since the source doesn't say that. Most sources say he is Armenian anyway.

Vartan, you're not supposed to remove dispute tags from a page. The explanation to insertion is provided, following the sock of User:Fadix, you're intentionally getting rid of CJF Dowsett reference to the fact that Khachen was Albanian principality and intentionally inserting POV that it was Armenian. The article is currently in a POV and OR condition. Hence the tags shall remain here until the successful conclusion to dispute is reached on the talk page. Now reinsert the tag back, otherwise, I will reporting your removal of tags to the attention of ArbCom. Atabek 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor should not add dispute tags without making a good faith effort to explain why he thinks they are needed. Other editors should not remove the tags without making a good faith effort to address the issues raised (denying that an issue exists is not sufficient). When in doubt, ask for comment or a third opinion. Thatcher131 01:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we avoid entirely for a while the issue of Sahl's ethnicity. Thatcher131 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazing that with all the repeated parsing of the footnote, no one has bothered to read the actual article (emphasis added)

The antecedents of Sahl i Smbatean

In this passage, Sahl i Smbatean, who is called Eransahik at III 19, is said to be of ' the Zarmirhakan family of kings '. This indicates that Sahl was the descendant of the Zarmirh Eransahik who was the sole survivor of the Eransahik family when they were treacherously exterminated by Vardan K'aj of the Mihrakan dynasty and was spared only because he was the husband of one of the daughters of Vardan's family... Suggestions that Sahl was a Bagratid or that his family came originally from Tarbn are to be discarded, or at least revised, in the light of the present passage, which is the only explicit statement on Sahl's origin, hitherto a mystery, found in Armenian sources. One cannot exclude the possibility, however, of this eminently respectable Albanian genealogy having been falsely assumed by Sahl or invented by the historian or his source in an attempt to legitimize Sahl's claim to the throne of Albania.

Unfortunately I can not find anything out about the Zarmirhakan family of kings as to whether they were Albanian or Armenian. That would help.

I take "Albanian prince" to mean prince of Caucasian Albania, which is not the same as saying he was born in Albania. On the other hand, I do not put much faith in reading between the lines and making inferences from spelling choices made in translation. Doswett says in the now-famous footnote that there is no foundation for the belief that Sahl was a Bagratid and the son of generalissimo Smbat Bagratuni. But Dowsett does not explicity say that Sahl was Armenian, which he could have said if he wanted to. Instead, Dowsett says Sahl was from the Zarmirhakan family of kings, which is an eminently respectable Albanian genealogy but which might be false. This is of course the first translation of a passage from the Patmut'iwn Aluanic by Movses Kalankatuaci that has been missing from previous trnaslations since 1895, and it is also the only statement of Sahl's origins in an Armenian source. If someone knows what the Zarmirhakan family of kings is, then I think we should include that along with the statement that it might have been invented to legitimize his rule. Otherwise, I think we should admit ignorance on the issue of Sahl's birth. Thatcher131 03:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minorsky in Caucasica IV writes

A particular complication results from the contemporary Armenian fashion of assuming Arabic patronymics (kunya) (such as Abii-Miisii, Abul-Asad, etc.), without any connexion with the original Armenian names. These latter too often recur in otherwise unrelated families, and it becomes difficult to discriminate between several Sahls, Vasaks, and Smbats living at the same time.

So Sahl is Armenian, right? (Minorsky thinks Sahl is a mask for his Christian name.) But maybe not. Also from Minorsky,

Opposite Qaraja-dagh, on the northern bank of the Araxes and up to the course of the Kur, there lies another hilly tract which, at the time in question, was studded with small principalities. ... The southern bank of the Kur seems to have depended on the Mihranids, but the situation here was unstable. Beyond the Kur we find the considerable Muslim principality of Sharvan, a survival from Sasanian times, but now ruled by the family of the Yazidids of the Shayblni tribe. West of Sharvln was situated Qabala, with a mixed population (including even some Khazars) but ruled by a Christian prince. In the west it bordered on Shakki, also with a Christian dynasty. The origins of the princes of Qabala and Shakki are little known, but in view of constant intermarriage we have to assume their manifold links with the princes of the right bank.

So he doesn't really know either. Then later,

The exact origin of Sahl is not explicitly stated. Thomas Artsruni, iii, § 11, calls him ruler of Shak'E, and we must remember that the Hudud al-'Alam, after having spoken of Shakki, refers (§ 36, 32) to ' Sunbatman, a town at the farther end of Shakki, with a strong fortress '. The name Sunbat-man means "Sunbat's house" and is likely to refer to the home of Sahl's ancestors.

So his ancestral home is in Shaki? Interestingly, Minorsky debunks the claim that Sahl was from the "eminently respectable" Zarmirhakan family,

The title Eranshahik, under which the historian of Albania presents him in this passage, is probably given him in anticipation, for immediately after, and under the same year [822], Moses speaks of the murder of the last Mihranid Varaz-Trdad by a certain Ter-Nerseh P'ilippean. We do not know whether the latter acted on behalf of Sahl, but Sahl surely profited by the crime, as he assumed

the title of the victim. As Varaz-Trdad is called the last Mihranid, it is clear that Sahl did not belong to that house.

Ultimately, the problem is that neither Dowsett nor Minorsky ever comes out and says where Sahl was from. In fact, they go to great lengths to explain why they don't know who Sahl was. You can selectively read them both to support either view. Since neither authority makes an explicit statement, any reading between the lines to draw conclusions is original research. Thatcher131 04:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarmihr (name of Iranian origin) was the only survivor from the ancient Arcasid dynasty that ruled Albania until late 5th century. He was not a king, but a member of the royal family, as after Vachagan III the Albanian monarchy was abolished by Persians and recreated after the Persian Mihranid dynasty ceased power in Albania. Grandmaster 04:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if the royal family represented by the name Zarmihr went extinct in the 5th century, it seems the case that the title Eransahik was assumed rather than inherited. Thatcher131 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was assumed first by Mihranids, later by Sahl. Eranshahik is a corrupted form of Arranshah, which was the title of kings of Albania and actually means "king of Albania" in Persian (Shah means king, Arran means Albania in Persian). This Iranian title was assumed due to the Iranian origin of Arcasid dynasty, branches of which ruled Parthia, Albania, Armenia and Georgia. Grandmaster 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your analysis of Dowsett and Minorsky, this is what I was saying from the beginning. Sahl’s origin is obscure and impossible to trace. Therefore he could be either Albanian or Armenian. The leading experts on the topic are Dowsett and Minorsky, who made detailed researches about this person, but they did not make any explicit conclusion about his ethnic origin. Therefore my edit simply mentioned both possible versions and let the reader judge. --Grandmaster 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be no peaceful way to mention both, it would be better to say nothing at all, unless the other parties here are willing to compromise. Thatcher131 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a solution. We can quote Minorsky as saying that Sahl’s origin is obscure and simply mention that he ruled parts of Caucasian Albania at a certain period in the history. --Grandmaster 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thatcher thanks for the feedback. I'd like to make few points. Both Dowsett and Minorsky papers are too specialised on specific subjects and would fit hardly in the context of an encyclopedic article unless we can place the content into context. On the origin of the Sahl particularly, when both claim that his origin is unknown, they are not questioning him being Armenian, they are wondering about his genealogy. Like Hewsen and various other sources mention, Albania was Armenized, and this since the capital was moved in the fifth century. In the 9th century, Albania had already passed into history. The Albanian literature of those periods is solely Armenian. With a term like Albania no one reading the article would guess that it is only geography. Wikipedia articles are generally not meant for the academicians, but the population in general who need clarification to understand the context.

When we claim a Caucasian Albanian we do not intend necessarily an ethnicity. If you check proposed lineage, they all trace back to couple of centuries prior, and the furthest is the century when the capital was moved to Partav in his case. Muslim sources of the period completely even ignore the geographic location of Albania and call it Armenia instead. Materials more accessible to the public explicitly say he was Armenian.

Or, when Ibn Sunbat, the Armenian local lord, tells Babak the rebel,... Poetics Of Islamic Historiography Deconstructing Ṭabarī History by Boaz Shoshan, 2004 BRILL, ISBN 9004129820 p. 115

They also calm his realm as Armenia here from Osman Sayyid Ahmad and Isma‘il Al-Bili:

Babak refused the offer and went to Armenia to settle with a certain Sahl b. Sunbat in his castle. The latter betrayed him to the agents of al-Afshin. Also betrayed was the brother of Babak, 'Abd Allah. With the situation in the Jibel area so well in the hands of al-Afshin's the Armenian rulers had ever reason to please their new powerful neighbour. Prelude to the Generals: A Study of Some Aspects of the Reign of the Eighth ‘Abbsid Caliph, Al-Mu ‘tasim Bi-Allah (218–277 AH/833–842 AD). By Osman Sayyid Ahmad and Isma‘il Al-Bili. Ithaca Press. Reading. 2001. 0–86372–277–6 p. 77

Several of the references removed explicitly say he was an Armenian, and his realm as being in Armenia. Dowsett does not write some résumé for the common ignorant reader about the subject, he knows that those who would read his specialised papers know the situation of the period… know that Albania was some Armenized entity, in the Armenian sphere of influence. Those who know the subject know that when Dowsett writes Smbatean, he accepts him being Armenian. Smbat is the Armenian form of the name, and the ean is an Armenian family name suffix which in this case, is exclusively Armenian.

I agree that it is ridiculous to fight on such a detail as his ethnicity, but even Caucasian Albania is into dispute, since various sources call his realm as being in Armenia, particularly Arabic sources.

So when you remove the reference to ethnicity and keep Caucasian Albania, no information is left on either that the region was at least culturally Armenian, or that Sahl was living in an Armenian region, that his Church was the Armenian Church, that the literature was Armenian. It is one thing to draw someone’s blood lineage, but in the end of the day, if you speak a particular language, write in that particular language, that you adhere to the Church of that culture, that the people under your realm speak that particular language, that the literature is exclusively of that particular language and that all sources targeting the general population (which Wikipedia does) call him an Armenian.

I don't see how with your modification Atabek or Grandmaster have done any compromise when their problem with many of those similar articles are particularly the presence of the word Armenia and Armenians. I think in the eye of any credible and notable historian, it would be a problem to see that the word Azerbaijan is thrown on various article by the same editors who have removed the term Armenia. In a point that the term Azerbaijan has become more common on Wikipedia in historic articles when you could check on JSTOR or various historic maps, papers, and you will find hundreds of times more reference to Armenia.

The ultimate problem in this particular case is that the realm of the Sahl, his culture, his people was Armenian. I don't know how you put this in the article but it is not correct to leave this in an imprecision. - Fedayee 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vartan, you are engaging in original research. I suggest you read Arabic sources, they say that in the 10th century people in Arran and its capital Barda spoke Arranian (i.e. Albanian) language. So the claims that Albania was Armenized by that time are not accurate. There was certain Armenian influence, but Albanian people existed as a distinct ethnicity until arrival of Oguz Turks. --Grandmaster 05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? You were off for 2 days, and the first sentence you wrote when you came back was to attack me? Thats a nice start for a Monday isnt it? I really hope you werent thinking about me the whole weekend, because that would be just toooo creepy. you can see how excited i am that you came back and i'm looking forward to the week ahead. Ohhhh what a joyyyy thats gonna be. Now if you would excuse me Im gonna go drink some more of the fine Armenian cognac. Or should I call it Albanian???? Because some Arabic sources call it Albanian. See you tommorow when I'll be sober and you would be presenting this as an evidance in the arbcom. Peace out VartanM 05:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? When did I attack you? I definitely will present this to the arbcom, you should mind WP:CIVIL when participating in discussions in Wikipedia. --Grandmaster 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bleme you for my alcoholism add that too VartanM 06:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of OR which I allegedly said, but never said. What Arabic sources are you talking about? VartanM 06:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:

В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [5]

In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.

Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:

Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [6]

Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.

Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:

Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [7]

In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.

The above sources prove that Albania and its capital Barda were not Armenized in the 10th century and people of that country spoke their own language until Oguz Turks took the region over. There was certain Armenian cultural influence, but Armenian language did not supplant the native tongue of the local people, and even today direct descendants of Caucasian Albanians udis speak their own language.

Grandmaster 10:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, don't drink and edit Wikipedia guys, Grandmaster I apologize if I somehow offended you. But you accused me of OR, when it was a different user who made that comment. I'll get back to you on you on the Arabic sources. VartanM 20:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was Fedayee, not you. No probs, I'm waiting for your comments. Grandmaster 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett says that by 835, Sahl had revolted against the Arabs and was ruler of Arran. (Apologies, this is copied from a pdf file and I have not cleaned it up)

According to the Arab historians Sahl, although he had been an ally of Babek (Baban), was prevailed upon by Afsin to deliver up the fleeing rebel who had taken refuge with him.6 For this service Sahl received, according to Mas'udi, a royal robe, a crown, and a horse, and was exempted from tribute, all of which amounts to an official investiture as ruler of Albania.8 The exemption from tribute must have been no more than official acceptance of the status quo, for already in 835, when Muhammad b. Suleymiin al-'Azdi al-Samarqandi arrived to govern Armenia, Sahl had revolted against the Arabs and made himself master of Arran ; this fact is discreetly ignored by the caliph in 837. The Armenian historian Vardan speaks only of a monetary reward : ' Sahl, son of Smbat, seizes Baban and receives from Ap'sin gifts of a thousand kiir of silver and yet another hundred thousand '.2 hlovs&' statement that Sahl received sovereignty over Armenia, Georgia, and Albania is, of course, a gross exaggeration. Sahl was not even sole ruler of Albania, and T'ovma Arcruni calls him only ' lord of Sak'B '.3 Among the prisoners captured by Bo&a al-Kabir in 854 John Catholicos and T'ovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes : Atrnerseh, lord of XaCBn,6 Sahl son of Smbat, lord of Sak'~a, nd Esay Abu Mu&, lord of K't'is in Arqax.7 After the murder of the Mihrakan prince Varaz Trdat in 821/2,s the last vestige of political unity disappeared from Albania ; his murderer Nerseh, son of P'ilippz, although he is said to have stolen all the possessions of Varaz-Trdat, does not appear to have played any subsequent role in the destiny of Albania. The Albanian princes seem to have ruled independently, although Atrnerseh of XaCEn was probably the most powerful ;

Comments? Thatcher131 03:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here Sahl is called an "Albanian prince". He was not the only ruler in Albania, as other rulers are mentioned too, but he was one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) leaders in Albania. I personally see it as a reference to his ethnicity, but since there could be other opinions too, I proposed to simply mention in the article that Dowsett referred to him as an “Albanian prince”, whatever that could mean. --Grandmaster 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually trying to move on from the rather tired issue of Sahl's roots and note that the article needs expansion as some of Sahl's achievements have not been included yet. Thatcher131 05:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current form says little about this person, other than Sahl was originally ruler of Shaki, captured Babek and handed him over to the Arabs. It needs expansion. Grandmaster 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to far. Really, Grandmaster and Atabek have not provided a single source that says Sahl was Albanian, yet they still make the claim. Every source I have checked, including Encyclopaedia Iranica, says that Sahl was Armenian.

How far will this go?Hajji Piruz

Please check the above posting of Thatcher, he made a detailed analysis of 2 most authoritative sources about Sahl. --Grandmaster 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was handed to Afshin's troops by Sahl b. Sunbadh, an Armenian prince in 222/836-7 The Cambridge History of Iran. Par W B Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, J A Boyle, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Jackson, Lawrence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press (1968) p.506

...Babek took to flight and fell into the hands of Sahl b. Sonbat, the Armenian Patriarch who had him arrested while hunting. E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 Par M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, BRILL, (1993) p.547

...an Armenian prince called Sahl b. Sanbat,... Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board, Editors: -Oct. 1936, Marmaduke Pickthall; Jan. 1937- Oct. 1938, Muhammad Asad-Weiss. (1927) p. 23

The Mihranids were extinguished through the assassination of Varaz-Trdat II by Nerseh P¿i¬ippean in 207/822-23, and the Armenian prince of Shakki to the north of Arran, Sahl i Smbatean (Arabic, Sahl b. Sonba@tá), extended his power over Arran. C.E Bosworth, Encyclopaedia Iranica: [8]

As per Dowsett, he clearly states that Sahls family and father were Armenian:

"After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni"( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220).

Sahl Ibn Sumbat means "Sahl the son of Smbat".

Irregardless of Minorsky or Dowsett, there are other authoritative sources which say Sahl was Armenian. We have yet to see a single source which says that he was Albanian.

Its ridiculous to only base ones opinion on only two sources when there are yet other authoritative sources out there.

Did Thatcher focus on these sources as well or did he only examine Dowsett and Minorsky?Hajji Piruz 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hajji Piruz, regarding your bolded OR claim above: "We have yet to see a single source which says that he was Albanian.", again :)

C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:

• "Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl Smbatean, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."

If you repeat the claim above again, I will repost it. Atabek 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why do you call everything OR? Do you know what constitutes OR (OR stands for original research)?

Its pretty funny Atabek that you are using Dowsett once more. It has been cleared that Dowsett has called Sahls family Armenia and that Albania in that context does not define ethnicity.

But hey, by all means, continue with the circular argument, feel free not do actually address anything presented by the other parties.Hajji Piruz 23:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because presented the CJF Dowsett quote above, your repeated claim "Dowsett has called Sahls family Armenia and that Albania in that context does not define ethnicity" is original research (or putting it mildly interpretation) without any reference or quote. Atabek 20:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that Afshin, the Persian prince of Oshrusana, was a Turk. This is wrong. Afshin (as the name suggests) was an Iranian Muslim general who served the Abbasid caliph. He is known as the great traitor who betryed Babak and the Persian nationalist movement, by fighting Babak and freeing some 7000 Arab prisoners.

Afshin's army consisted of a large number of Turkish slave soldiers, but he himself was an Iranian. His father was among the powerful Iranian Muslim advisors of the Abasids, just like the famous Barmakid family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.128.189 (talk) 18:49:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, Afshin was a Turk, the reference at the end of that sentence says that. Atabek 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek, there good amount of sources that Afshin was Iranian. Besides Bosworth in Iranica, here are some:

[9] [10] [11] [12] I am not going to get involved on the Sahl issue here, but there is no reason to bring Afshin to the debate. --alidoostzadeh 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, I don't see how Bosworth would be an expert on Afshin as well. But in general al-Istakhri, J. Saint Martin, relying on Armenian historians, as well as Britannica [13]. Moreover, Afshin originated from Ferghana, which is modern-day Uzbekistan, homeland of Timur, and can hardly be called "Iranian" region. In future, please, discuss your edits and wait for reply before editing the article. Thanks. Atabek 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek at the time of Afshin, Ferghana was Soghdian speaking. Uzbeks came much later. Bosworth is a top expert on medieval Islamic history. I think both views should simply be presented in the Afshin article. I brought 4 google links. I agree some classical sources call him a Turk as well, but at the same time, many people from Central Asia were called a Turk in some Arabic sources. (this is discussed in several different JSTOR articles) even if they were not. I think simply there is no reason to argue on Afshin in this page as Sahl ibn Smbat is enough for people who are involved (for example Ibn Hawqal says he is the ruler of Armenia and there is another source calling him ruler of Albania and there is sufficient number of discussions here without getting Afshin involved). The case of Sahl article might have resemblence to Afshin. But there should be a better approach than this article, I think the comments on the origin of Afshin should be removed from here and the Afshin page modified to reflect both views. I am not ruling out Afshin was Turkic or Iranic. But to put one view on this page is not encyclopedic. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali, I agree that we should put multiple views. And I can put more Google links to 3 sources I provided above, claiming he was a Turk. But then I don't see why the page on Afshin claims him as only Iranian general without mentioning other references to Turkish origin. Also claiming that in 8-9th century, Ferghana, in the heart of Central Asia, had no Turks, while they suddenly appeared in 10th century as Seljuks and invaded Iran from the east, does not seem quite plausible. Atabek 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seljuqs were not from Ferghana, they were from the region around the Aral sea (ca. 1000 km further north), and they did not invade Iran, they invaded the northern parts of Khorasan before being forced to accept various coalitions within Iran (see the excellent article in Encyclopaedia of Islam). "Turks invading Iran" is misleading and gives the impression that the Oghuz Turks, as an ethnic unit, invaded and conquered Iran. This is simply not true. The migration of Turkic peoples into Persia was a slow process that had not much to do with invasions, and it was quite different from the later Mongol invasion which resulted in the massacre of many millions: Iranians and Turks. Native entities never regarded the Seljuqs as invaders or enemies of Islam. It was quite the opposite: Iranian nobles supported the Seljuq cause, because for the first time after the Arab conquest, the Iranian lands were united under one political power which also incorporated native Iranians and native Iranian traditions. Khorasanian nobles were appointed to the position of veziers, military commanders, advisors, etc etc etc. Your conclusion that "Afshin was a Turk because he was from Ferghana" is wrong anyway, because we know from historical sources, especially from the works of al-Biruni, that Central Asia was predominantly Iranian. The number of Turkic tribes was very small, and many of them had been converted to Islam by the zealous jihad of the Samanids. Samanid sources claim that 200,000 Turks ("50,000 tents") were forcefully converted to Islam, and those Turks were mostly residants of what is now the southern Qazaq steppes (see Ibn Athir, volume 8, pg. 396). Later on, the Ghaznavids claimed that a total number of some 70,000 Oghuz were moving from the north into Ghaznavid territory (see Tarikh-i Masudi; Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). These are very realistic numbers, because, as Canfield puts it, "the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads". We are talking about the 10th and 11th centuries, and the entire number of Turks recorded by Muslim historians was not more than some 250,000. Even if we double the number to 500,000 Turks in Central Asia (men, women, and children), then this is still nothing compared to the sedentary and established Central Asian cities, each of them having a population of more than 50,000 at that time (Samarqand, Bukhara, Tus, Nishapur, Balkh, Herat, etc etc etc). The Turks were not a threat to the cultural and social environment of back then, because their number was small and they resided - as nomads - outside the centers of society. That's why the Turks rapidly adopted the way of life of the settled population and not vice versa. Your entire conclusion is wrong. And keeping in mind that Afshin lived in the 9th century, it is very unlikely that he was a Turk. His name, his birthplace, the name of his father, his title, and the name of his family point to an Iranian origin. At that time, the number of Turks in Muslim armies was still small. This changed a century later, when the Samanids actively recruited Turks into their army, of whom some later became important generals and founders of dynasties. (Sebüktegin, for example, or Qutb ud-Din Aybak) 82.83.158.97 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets move the discussion of Afshin to the talk page of Afshin. I think if some sources call him a Turk then we should mention both viewpoint although Iranian seems more natural in this case (given the letter of Afshin's brother to Kuhyar). I am going to move this discussion of Afshin into the Afshin page. People, please continute from there. [14] --alidoostzadeh 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got a pretty concrete source calling him Armenian. If a turkish book called him Armenian and we had several to start with, this is a closed and shut case.Hetoum I 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(statement redacted) I restored to previous Arabic title, as Sahl Sunbat was mostly known from Arabic sources, cited by Minorsky, CJF Dowsett, C. E. Bosworth and other authoritative scholarly sources. Please, discuss your changes and do not remove sources to important and authoritative references. Apart from Sahl being mentioned in Armenian sources, no reliable source so far says he was Armenian, they only refer to Armenian version of his name. Also refer to thread [15] by User:Thatcher131, yet again requesting reference that would show that Sahl was ethnic Armenian. Atabek 11:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsett uses the Armenian name, we've been there already, you were the one who misquoted Dowsett by replacing his wording with the Arabic version, Bosworth too uses the Armenian version as well as his true name, he only place his Arabic name in parenthesis here. [16] Sahl I Smbatean was his name, also included in the History of Albania. You will find more hits in google book for Smbat than Sunbat. Are we done with this yet? VartanM 16:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VartanM, Bosworth reference is available at Google Books here, the main body of material uses ibn Sunbat while citing in footnote only that in Armenian it sounds Smbatean. It does not mean that Sahl was Armenian, it's the references to him came from Armenian sources. Again, I don't see why legitimate CJF Dowsett and Minorsky references were removed in your edit, both authors are more authoritative on the subject than those currently listed on the page. Again, no proof that Sunbat was Armenian. Regarding calling my comments as "abrasive answers", assume good faith. Atabek 05:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek Smbat gets more hits than Sunbat on google books, and most Sunbats are solely Arabic sources. Iranica article by Bowset use Smbat not Sunbat, and that Dowsett calls him by his Armenian name. In the 8 months I've been here I am yet to see you to assume good faith in any Armenia-Azerbaijan related article, so stop telling me to assume good faith. VartanM 06:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually get almost twenty results for Sunbat on google books [17]. Anyway, my own read of this situation is that you both have good arguments. Do we have any evidence about what he called himself? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) (which is about adjectives rather than names) suggests that articles should be titled as people call themselves. Any thoughts, Thatcher?--Chaser - T 07:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaser, Smbat is the original term, if you search you have to search for Smbat, Smbatean and Smbatian, it is actually S'mbat some authors also replace the ' with e or u, so add Sembat and Sumbat in your search too. Those are all the Armenian versions. So clearly you have more hits from its Armenian version. I think we should stick to the English version (derived from Armenian) Sahl son of Smbat, neither taking one or the other. - Fedayee 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem in both the Armenian and Arabic names being shown in the article, however, since he was Armenian it makes sense to use his Armenian name as the title, right?Hajji Piruz 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting about this is that User:VartanM references "Smbat" name from CJF Dowsett, yet removes the quote or any mentioning of Dowsett in his revert. Atabek 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Thatcher's version. I don't see that subsequent edits had a consensus on talk. I kept Ali's edit though for the sake of avoiding another ethnicity dispute. --Grandmaster 12:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete sourced mostly used name and nationality. Im adding also one: Movses Kalankatuatsi or Dasxuranc'i (III, Chapter 19) also used his name as "Smbatean" (see f.e. Movsēs Dasxuranc'i, The History of the Caucasian Albanians, transl. of Dowsett, 1961, p. 213).Andranikpasha 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. F. Dowsett. "A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians"", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3. (1957), p.463:

"Among the prisoners captured by Bogha al-Kabir in 854, John Catholicos and Tovma Arcruni mention three Albanian princes: Atrnerseh, lord of Khachen, Sahl ibn-Sunbat, lord of Shake, Esay Abu Musa, lord of Ktish in Artsakh."

Sahl Smbatean was not Armenian.Atabek (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek did you not have enough of this? Is there some kind of a calendar that you're using? This article was enjoying its peace for a year and if you still have a doubt of his Armenian ethnicity, then be kind and re-read this talkpage from top to bottom. VartanM (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear cut case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator and Vartan, not sure, what scholarly authority either of you represent vis-a-vis CJF Dowsett, Professor Emeritus, Calouste Gulbenkian Professor of Armenian Studies at Oxford University. So, until you provide some credentials to dispute the source, I see no need to engage in further dispute. Atabek (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone disputing Dowsett. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like numerous users have already pointed out, Albania held a strictly geographical, not an ethnic meaning from the fifth-century onwards. From that period on, it was Armenian both culturally and ethnically.

That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. - Robert Hewsen. Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982. p. 34.

Your source doesn't doing anything to disprove this but putting your hands to your ears and yelling "la la la, I can't hear you" isn't going to change it either. Stop tormenting these articles each time you come out of your hibernation and leave them alone. This has really reached a level of nonsense and symptomatic disruption.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No point in repeating this. It doesn't seem like he intends to stop his disruptive behaviour. It's time to take other steps.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, instead of exercising your imagination with bad faith and personal attacks, in a radically angry and unhealthy fashion, I suggest that you and Eupator follow some rules of compromised editing based on consensus. I shall remind you also of WP:OWN and the fact that these articles were never arbitrated by a 3rd party, while they very well could and should be.

The fact that you want to selectively choose references (majority of your choices are Armenian) claiming Sahl was Armenian does not make him Armenian or Albanian. This is an encyclopedic article, where all historical references shall be presented for NPOV and not just those chosen due to your POV. In this sense, Dowsett and Minorsky references, which are obviously more reliable, neutral than Hewsen can ever be on the subject, can only strengthen the article without necessarily removing other references. Atabek (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the conclusion that your edits are nowhere grounded in good faith a very long time ago. Sahl Smbatyan was an Armenian, simple as that. If and when he is referred to as a ruler of Albania, it's done in a strictly geographic or ecclesiastical sense, since Albania had lost all ethnic and cultural meaning in the ninth century. I see no reason to continue this discussion and will treat further similar edits by you as outright vandalism.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, "Sahl Smbatyan was an Armenian, simple as that", your opinion in this case is a conviction, which isn't confirmed by an expert scholar, who said "three Albanian princes... Sahl Smbatean". What I seek is not your acceptance of fact that he was Albanian (your comment highlighted above clearly shows that you just can't), but simply being fair and incorporating all references in good faith. Atabek (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont waste your time guys, his not worth it. VartanM (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, the version which you edited was already a compromise, as stated in the talkpage. There was not only a conflict about the ethnicity, but also about if whatever or not his realm was in Caucasian Albania or Armenia. Note that what is Albania was classified by the Arabs under their rules as Armenia I. Several sources were provided placing it in Armenia. It was explained that Caucasian Albania was nothing more than a geographic region during that time. Much like Anatolia is in Turkey, there is no contradiction between being in Anatolia and Turkey. So the compromise was to leave Caucasian Albania but adding that the Sahl was Armenian. Note that most sources, particularly intended for the general public, claim it in Armenia. Because the general public has no knowledge of the history of the period and has no knowledge that by then Caucasian Albania was nothing more than a geographic region. You can email Hewsen (who Grandmaster likes to quote), Hewsen is easily accessible, and he will gladly reply to you by confirming this, including the rest of the scholars Grandmaster quotes and they will confirm this.

See the references already provided.

Babak refused the offer and went to Armenia to settle with a certain Sahl b. Sunbat in his castle. The latter betrayed him to the agents of al-Afshin. Also betrayed was the brother of Babak, Abd Allah. With the situation in the Jibal area so well in the hands of al-Afshin's the Armenian rulers had every reason to please their new powerful neighbour. Prelude to the Generals Study of Some Aspects of the Regn of the Eighth Abbasid Caliph, Al ... Osman Sayyid Ahmad Ismail Al-Bili Garnet & Ithaca Press (2001) p.77

He was handed to Afshin's troops by Sahl b. Sunbadh, an Armenian prince in 222/836-7. The Cambridge History of Iran. W B Fisher, Richard Nelson Frye, J A Boyle, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Jackson, Lawrence Lockhart, Cambridge University Press (1968) p.506

...Babek took to flight and fell into the hands of Sahl b. Sonbat, the Armenian Patriarch who had him arrested while hunting. E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 Par M. Th. Houtsma, E. van Donzel, BRILL, (1993) p.547

...an Armenian prince called Sahl b. Sanbat,... Islamic Culture by Islamic Cultural Board, Editors: -Oct. 1936, Marmaduke Pickthall; Jan. 1937- Oct. 1938, Muhammad Asad-Weiss. (1927) p. 23

The Mihranids were extinguished through the assassination of Varaz-Trdat II by Nerseh Philippean in 207/822-23, and the Armenian prince of Shakki to the north of Arran, Sahl i Smbatean (Arabic, Sahl b. Sonbatean), extended his power over Arran. C.E Bosworth, Encyclopaedia Iranica

"After four years, in the year when New Year's Day coincided with Easter Day, Abu Ali, the native Armenian (Haykazuni) prince of Albania was killed by his full brother Smbat, king of Armenia, son of Ashot Bagratuni"( The History of the Caucasian Albanians (translated by C. F. J. Dowsett). London: (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8). Pg 220).

A particular complication results from the contemporary Armenian fashion of assuming Arabic patronymics (kunya) (such as Abii-Miisii, Abul-Asad, etc.), without any connexion with the original Armenian names. These latter too often recur in otherwise unrelated families, and it becomes difficult to discriminate between several Sahls, Vasaks, and Smbats living at the same time. Minorsky in Caucasica IV. Note that Thatcher's comment on the matter shows how easily someone who does not know the history of the region can easily be fooled. While he claims that it seems Minorsky say he is Armenian, he then is not so sure, because he does not know from where he was, neither about the genealogy. But, knowing the period, and knowing the fact that it was a geographic region, and that by then Albania vanished as a true entity, it becomes clear that the second part of Minorsky paper does not question that quote, but simply wonders about his origins.

In the ninth century (Sahl era), Armenian, Georgian and Muslims all laid claims on Caucasian Albania which was a geographic region, up until the twelfth century. But in the ninth century when Sahl claimed the throne, there was no Albania left, it was some geographic region. See here, another source provided here: By the early eighth century, most of Albania had come under the rule of the caliphate, and a process of Islamization of the population began, which continued under the regional dynasties of the Sheddadids and Maziadids. A number of potentates in the Transcaucasus — Armenian, Georgian, and Muslim — all continued to lay claim to the kingship of Albania until the twelfth century, although for all intents and purposes, Caucasus Albania had passed into history by the ninth century. (An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James Stuart, Olson Greenwood Press (1994) p.27

Already starting with the fifth century the modern Albania of the time had become culturally Armenian. This too was already provided, from Hewsen:

That the so-called Christian or New Albanian culture, which flourished after the transfer of the capital from Kabala, north of the Kur, to Partav, south of the river, in the fifth century, A. D., was essentially Armenian is also beyond question, and here the arguments of Manc'akanyan are the strongest. No trace of an Albanian literature in the Albanian language survived, and all of the so-called Albanian literature which has come down to us is certainly written in Armenian. Contrary to Bunjatov, there is no evidence that any of this literature was translated into Armenian from another language and his assertion that the Armenian Church caused the Albanian literature to be translated into Armenian and then had originals destroyed is a flight of facy. (Hewsen, Robert H. Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982).

Here is more, which I add to the sources already provided.

So he came to the marches of Armenia, and the lands of Sahl, one of the Patricians of that kingdom. Muhammad's People: An Anthology of Muslim Civilization, Eric Schroeder, Courier Dover Publications, 2002, p. 386 The Sahl is Smbat, as in the next paragraph the author writes: Sahl first brought him into his castle and feasted him. Then suddenly he had him seized and loaded with heavy chains. Is this treachery, Sahl? Said Babak. Sahl Smbat kept Babak captive.

But the fates betrayed him; actually, one of the Armenian patriarchs, Sahl b. Sunbat, from whom Babak asked protection, betrayed him. Interpreting Islam, Bandali Jawzi's Islamic Intellectual History, Tamara Sonn, Panteleĭmon Krestovich Zhuze, Oxford University Press US, 1996, p. 118

Sunbat b. Ashut, Sahl b. Sunbat were personalities from the border areas of Northern Persia and Armenia... Judaeo-Arabic Studies, Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies Conference, Norman Golb, Routledge, 1997, p. 139

In conclusion, your removal of Armenian was specifically what Atabek was after, from all the authors, he has found one, from who the quotes could have been interpreted the way he wanted and used to sustain something which will justify the removal or the balancing of the reality that Sahl realm was culturally Armenian. We compromised over this by leaving Caucasian Albania, but including Armenian for Sahl. VartanM (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the whole discussion in connection with the aforecited excerpt of C.J.F. Dowsett, is a misconception. In fact, Dowsett merely quotes two historiographers who "mention three Albanian princes". Thus, instead of an endless "it isn't! it is!", we should better consult those sources. I found the place, where Thomas Arcruni speaks about the "three Albanian princes":

Իսկ իբրև նա ըմբռնեցաւ, և գիտաց զօրավարն եթէ ոչ ոք այնուհետև յիշխանացն Հայոց մնաց, որ ոչ համագունդ ժողովեալ են առ նա (...) եդին զոտս նոցա ի կապանս երկաթիս և բարձին ուղտուց և խաղացուցին ի Սամառայ. որոց անուանք ճանաչի սոցա՝ տէր Սմբատ սպարապետ Հայոց, և Գրիգոր Քուրդկայ որդ�� Մամիկոնէից տէր, և Ատրներսէհ Աղուանից իշխան, և Գրիգոր Սիւնաց տէր, և Սահլ Սմբատայ որդի, Շաքեո տէր, որ զԲաբանն կալավ, և իշխանական Վասակ Վայոց Ձորոյ տէրն, և Փիլիպպէ իշխանն Սիւնաց, և Ներսէհ իշխան Գարիփայանից և ապա Եսայի Ապումուսէ, որ զշատ պատերազմունսն եհար։

And when the general [Bugha] was certain that no one of the Princes of Armenia was left, who was not gathered by him (...), their [Princes' of Armenia] foots were claped in iron, they were lifted up on camels and carried to Samara. The ones, who are known by their names, are: Lord Smbat - Sparapet of Armenia, Grigor son of Kourd - Mamikonian Lord, Atrnerseh - Prince of Aghuank, Grigor - Lord of Syunik, Sahl son of Smbat - Lord of Shakke, who had captured Baban [Babek], Ishkhanakn Vasak - Lord of Vayots Dzor, Philippe - Lord of Syunik, Nerseh - Prince of Garipayank, and finally Esayi Abumuse, who fought many battles.

Thovma Artsruni & Anon, History of the House of Artsruni. Yerevan, 1985, pp. 297-298.

I think it is perfectly clear, Artsruni is not calling out the ethnicities of those princes, but rather their titles and holdings. Thus the effort to use the excerpt of Dowsett as an argumantation, as if Sahl Smbatian was ethnically Albanian, is IMO a misinterpretation of a source. Previously Atabəy quoted from an other work of Dowsett the words "In Albania, Xacen..." argueing that Khachen was not an Armenian, but an Albanian principality. A plain and straight argumantation - if you read these two words only, but when you read the context, you see Dowsett speaks about the Caucasus in the 12th century. Since it is known that Albania was gone at least in the 10th century, Dowsett could merely refer to Albania as a historical region. Thus if we say Khachen was an "Albanian principality", it would be the same, if we call Arsacid Armenia an "Urartian kingdom" or the Ottoman Empire a "Greek Empire". This argumantation is very similar to the one with regard to Sahl --Vacio (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his "Caucasica IV" (p. 505) V. Minorsky makes mention of "the descendants of Ancient Albanian kings issued from one Mihran". This is an other clear evidence, that Albanian prince or king could refer the title or domains of a prince or dynasty, without any reference to its ethnicity. --Vacio (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Balk in the following phrase goes to the infraction in baseball. I didn't find a correct link so I leave that to others. "...committed atrocities against the revolted Armenians of Balk, Gegharkunik and Lachin (the three cantons of Syunik)..." WithGLEE (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]