Talk:Utik/Archive 1

Archive 1

Udis

Added the following info:

Армянские средневековые источники (на­пример, "Ашхарацуйц") определяют область рас­селения удин — наханг Утик, состоящий из 8 гаваров / районов: Гардаман, Тускатак, Шакашен, Арданрот, Ути арандзнак, Рот-и-баз-Кура. Север­нее Куры расположен Агванк, т. е. Албания с цен­тром в Кабалаке (ныне с. Чухур-Кабала Куткашенского/Кабалинского р-на).

Утик вошел в состав Армении при Арташесе I (189 — 160 гг. до н. э.). Агванк оставался независимым. После раздела Армении между Ри­мом и Ираном (387 г. н. э.) Утик (а также Арцах и часть Пайтакарана) был присоединен к Агван-ку, из которых образовалось особое персидское марзпанство (наместничество).

It says that Utik was populated by udis. It also states when Utik became part of Armenia. Grandmaster 07:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's dispute and POV. Can't do.--TigranTheGreat 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it doesn't say that Ashkaratsuyts states that Udis lived in Utik. IT's the interpretation of this particular author, and it shall be stated as such. Ashkh merely provides boundaries and divisions.--TigranTheGreat 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the aforementioned info from Kuznetsov is already there. No need to mention it twice.--TigranTheGreat 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuznetsov clearly states that Shirakatsi described Utik as a region, populated by udis. If you can quote the original source that proves him wrong, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise we cannot remove sourced info. Grandmaster 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That Kuznetsov's interpretation, and it's stated in the fifth paragraph.--TigranTheGreat 09:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you remove the statement that Utik was also a province of Caucasian Albania? All the sources that I quoted, including Kuznetsov, Shulze and Iranica, say that it was part of Albania. See quote from Kuznetsov above. Also Shulze:

One of the provinces of Aluan had been Uti, the population of which is referred to by the name Udini (or Utidorsi) in Latin sources, and by the name Οὐίτιοι in Greek sources. [1]

Iranica:

The more or less self-interested loyalty of the Albanians explains why the Sasanians helped them to seize from the Armenians the provinces (or districts) of Uti (with the towns of Xalxal and Partaw), Shakashen, Kolt, Gardman, and Arcax (Pawstos Biwzand, History 5.12, 13, in Langlois, Collection I, p. 288; idem, Armenian Geography, tr. A. Soukry, Venice, 1881, p. 39; cf. Markwart, EÚra@nÞahr, p. 118; H. S. Anassian, “Mise au point relative aà l'Albanie caucasienne,” Revue des e‚tudes arme‚niennes 6, 1969, pp. 306ff.). These territories were to remain in the possession of Albania; a reconquest by Musheg (cf. Pawstos, ibid.) was unlikely. [2]

So please stop removing sourced info, or I will have to ask for admin intervention. Grandmaster 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Utik was given to the Albanian marzpanate by persians centuries after it had been part of Armenia. We state it in the article. That does not make it historically Albanian territory.

After that event, Armenian chronicles call the area Aluan, or Armenian Aluan. They differentiated the actual Caucasian Albania (north of Kura), which they called "bun Aghvank"--Albania proper. The Armenian Aluan was merely a geographical term for an Armenian province, just like Macedonia is purely geographical term in Greece, unrelated to the ethnicity of Macedonians. Which is why your German guy says that it was part of Aluan. Yet, it was part of Armenia (until 428 AD).

And Kuznetsov says nothing about the region being part of Albania. HE says it was taken in 190 bc, but doesn't state from who--could be from Media, just like Caspiene. Kuznetsov further clearly states that in Greco-Roman times udines lived north of Kura, then he *thinks* they ended up in the area of the Armenian province of Utik:

Более поздними греко-римскими авторами (Аполлоний Родосский, Полибий, Страбон и др.) обычно локализуются в северо-западном Прикаспии, но всегда севернее р. Кура. Плиний Старший. (I в. н. э.) называет удин скифским племенем и упоминает также так называемых утидорсов (аор-сы-сарматы, видимо, смешанное племя).

Later Greco-Roman authors usually locate them (i.e. udines) in the north-western Caspian, but always norht of Kura. Pliny calls them scythian tribe.

All of these is mentioned in the text of the article, noone is removing anything. You are just trying to present one interpretation as fact, despite the presence of a dispute.--TigranTheGreat 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--TigranTheGreat 19:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources clearly define Utik as a province of C.Albania. Shulze:

One of the provinces of Aluan had been Uti, the population of which is referred to by the name Udini (or Utidorsi) in Latin sources, and by the name Οὐίτιοι in Greek sources. Same with Iranica.

Plus, they say that it had udi population:

Армянские средневековые источники (на¬пример, "Ашхарацуйц") определяют область рас¬селения удин — наханг Утик, состоящий из 8 гаваров / районов: Гардаман, Тускатак, Шакашен, Арданрот, Ути арандзнак, Рот-и-баз-Кура.

Once again, stop removing verifiable info. Grandmaster 06:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And Aluank is an Armenian name for Albania, see Iranica: ALBANIA (Iranian Aran, Arm. Aluank), an ancient country in the Caucasus, etc [3] Grandmaster 06:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the Armenian province of Aluank--as Armenians called the Kur-Arax plain after 5th c. That's what shulz is talking about. And we state it in the article. That doesn't negate the fact that it was part of kingdom of Armenia. This is from the source that you used (Hovhannes Draskhanakertsi):

• Алванк — так, в отличие от греко-римской Албании, начиная с марзпанского периода, в армянских источниках называлось междуречье Куры и Аракса с провинциями Арцах и Утик, от крепости Хунаракерт (Хнаракерт) и до места их слияния. После раздела Армении в 387 г. между Византией и Персией персидские власти объединили территории Кавказской Албании и восточных нахангов Армении Арцаха и Утика в одну административную единицу— Албанию под управлением персидского наместника — марзпана. Однако уже после восстании 450—451 г. и 480 г. Персия была вынуждена предоставить Армении значительную независимость, поставив ее правителем шихана Ваана Мамиконяна. В это же время в Арцахе и Утике местный армянский княжеский род Араншахиков.

http://www.armenianhouse.org/draskhanakertsi/history-ru/chapter11_20.html

I.e. Aluank--contrary to the Greco-roman Albania, starating with the marzpanate period (5th c), Armenian sources call the Kura-arax mesopotamia Aluank. After division of Armenia, the area and Cauc. Albania were joined to create a marzpanate called Albania. However, Armenia later gained greater independence (in later 5th c.), and at the same time in Artsakh and Utik the local Armenian noble house of Aranshahiks ruled.

So, yes, it was part of Aluank after 5th c., but the Armenian Aluank. We state it in the article. As for population, the different theories are listed in the 5th paragraph.--TigranTheGreat 09:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Iranica, neutral source. It says that Aluan was Albania in Armenian and that Utik was part of Caucasian Albania since 4th century. This should be reflected in the lead. Plus, we have two sources stating that the population of Utik consisted of udis. Grandmaster 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your two sources conflict. Kuznetsov says initially they were above Kura, then appeared south of Kura. Shultz says they were one of 26 tribes. These and other disputed items are covered in the population section. As for Aluan/Aghuank, it was the name given to two separate entities--Cacuasian albania north of Kura, and the Armenian province of Aluan (Aghvanits yerkir) south of Kura. Utik was part of the second Aluan. See your own Draskhanakertsi link.--TigranTheGreat 02:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How come they conflict? Yes, they were one of the 26 tribes and lived above Kura. I see no contradiction here. And that Aluank is different from Albania is the opinion of the translator, but other sources, even Armenian ones, don’t think so.

Strabon, Plutarch, Claudia Ptolemeo and other authors recalled that the border of Armenia with neighboring Albania (also known as Aluank) extended along the Kur River. [4]

Plus we have neutral Iranica.Grandmaster 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Lev Gumilev, Utik became part of Armenia only ca. 95 BC. See [5]: In 95 BC, Tigranes the Great became King of Armenia. Tigranes managed to annex Sophene and part of the East Caucasus - Utik. Parishan 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Agustí Alemany in Sources on the Alans: a critical compilation, the name Utik has nothing to do with Albanians but is derived from Sarmatians. As for the Aluank, they were clearly 100% Armenian and had moved West in the wake of Sassanid provincial and administrative moves. We know that these Aluank, spoke and wrote Armenian and were subordinates of the Armenian church.--Eupator 15:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite neutral sources, please. "We know" is not a good argument. Grandmaster 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there were two Aluanks--Armenian and Albanian--is not just the opinion of the translator. Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia states the same. So does Khorenatsi--the Kura-Arax area was the inheritted land of Armenian Sisakans (called Aluanits plain), while north of Kura is where "barbarians" lived. Utik was joined by Persians with Caucas. Albania to form the marzpanate of Albania, but only after 428. Now, if you want, we can add "and later a province of Caucasian Albania."--TigranTheGreat 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't to whom the region originally belonged, so the best way is to say that it was province of Armenia and Caucasain Albania. Considering that it was populated by udis and named after them, it could not have been an original Armenian province, however it belonged to Armenia at a certain period of time. Grandmaster 06:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the terms Aluank, Aghvank and Albania, here's another Armenian source that equates them all:

The emperor returned home without having accomplished anything, the katolikos again took refuge in Tayk, and Theodore Rstuni, still more embittered, returned, having been honored by Mu'awiyah at Damascus and given authority over Virk [Iberia], Aluank (Aghvank) [Albania] and Siwnik in exchange for his allegiance.

The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. ISBN: 0312101694

Grandmaster 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was the Armenian province of Albania/Aghvank. As for Utik, we do know that the very first time it's mentioned, it's part of Armenia and noone else. And we do know that it became part of Albanian marzpanate in 400's. So if we mention Albania, we should state that it became its province later.

The population was Armenian, as Strabo states. The idea that Udis populated it is the opinion of some modern secondary sources. Even they state that originally Udis lived above Kura.--TigranTheGreat 07:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an independent source that states 95/94 BC as the year when Utik became part of Armenia (see above). Parishan 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And 2 sources that say Utik was populated by udis. Grandmaster 11:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster you are vandalizing this page with your reverts, just like your doing the same things in other pages. If you want to put something in put a reference to it. What you are doing is changing a sentence that was referenced and adding other stuff to the sentence that does not even have a reference. By the way I'll reply to your comment that was made towards me "it is interesting to note coordination of your rv activty with banned user" If it is that interesting to you than you should go write a book about it. I really don't care whos banned or whos not or if I will get banned or not and no one can tell me to change something if they wanted to change something they should change it by their self, so don't give me crap about cordination. It seems like that you are good at blaming and snitching on people. ROOB323 08:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

References to population of Utik are provided here on this talk just above. Please check before blindly reverting. Grandmaster 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current version but references in talk pages should not be here if you're going to support your claim in the article, also Russian sources are no good here, its not reliable nor any good to the rest of us. Nareklm 08:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will add the references to the respective parts. Non-English sources are acceptable by the rules. Grandmaster 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." If you're going to do it please make it clear or it will be removed. Nareklm 09:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Atabek what I reverted was not the the full text of the reference. I reverted to the way it was before. Before the reference was there, but not the words that were added before. ROOB323 06:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the provinces of Aluan had been Uti, the population of which is referred to by the name Udini (or Utidorsi) in Latin sources, and by the name Οὐίτιοι in Greek sources. [6] Do not delete referenced info anymore. Grandmaster 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way GM just so you know it was not referenced before. I did not see any reference next to the sentence, so don't tell me "do not delete referenced info anymore" I don't have a problem with something if it has a reference, but you GM did delete referenced information from the article. If your asking other users not to delete referenced information than you should also follow what you are saying to others. ROOB323 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any referenced information from the article. And these sources were in the article for a long time, you just needed to check them. Grandmaster 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The source that you restored was misquoted by Tigran. It does not say that udis migrated to Utik. It says:

Плиний Старший. (I в. н. э.) называет удин скифским племенем и упоминает также так называемых утидорсов (аор-сы-сарматы, видимо, смешанное племя). В связи с этим вероятен дрейф этнонима или более слож¬ные этногенетические процессы (например, осе¬дание какого-либо ираноязычного или, что ме¬нее вероятно, угро-финского народа и восприя¬тие им языка местного кавказского населения).

Pliny the Elder calls udis a Scythian tribe and also mentions so called utidors (aor-s-sarmats, apparently a mixed tribe). Due to this a drift of ethnonym or more complex ethnogenetic processes are probable (for example, settlement of some Iranian-speaking or, less probably, Finno-Ugric peoples and adoption by them of language of the local Caucasian population). Grandmaster 08:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now compare the above quote with the following line that you readded, and you'll see that the source was distorted: Some researchers suggest that Udis later moved to the area of Utik, giving the province its name, while being completely Armenianized by the 6th century AD. This is not what Kuznetsov says. Grandmaster 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine than. ROOB323 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Strabo

The article says:

According to Strabo, Armenia, which in the 6th c. BC had covered a large portion of Asia, had lost some of its lands by the 2nd c. BC.

I don't see how this quote from Strabo is related to Utik:

In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians, but later, in the time of Astyages, it was deprived of that great authority by Cyrus and the Persians, although it continued to preserve much of its ancient dignity; and Ecbatana was winter residence4 for the Persian kings, and likewise for the Macedonians who, after overthrowing the Persians, occupied Syria; and still today it affords the kings of the Parthians the same advantages and security. [7]

It does not say anything about Armenia losing its lands. It may have politically dominated Asia, but it does not mean that whole Asia was an Armenian land. And here's another quote from Strabo, it does not say that Armenia "regained" Utik. It says that it conquered some lands from its neughbours.

According to report, Armenia, though a small country in earlier times, was enlarged by Artaxias and Zariadris, who formerly were generals of Antiochus the Great,9 but later, after his defeat, reigned as kings (the former as king of Sophene, Acisene, Odomantis, and certain other countries, and the latter as king of the country round Artaxata), and jointly enlarged their kingdoms by cutting off for themselves parts of the surrounding nations,--I mean by cutting off Caspiane and Phaunitis and Basoropeda from the country of the Medes; and the country along the side of Mt. Paryadres and Chorsene and Gogarene, which last is on the far side of the Cyrus River, from that of the Iberians; and Carenitis and Xerxene, which border on Lesser Armenia or else are parts of it, from that of the Chalybians and the Mosynoeci; and Acilisene and the country round the Antitaurus from that of the Cataonians; and Taronitis from that of the Syrians; and therefore they all speak the same language, as we are told. [8]

Grandmaster 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So what does this and your personal interpretation have to do with the edits you made?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that all you have to say? Could you please show me the word "regained" in Strabo's text please? Thanks in advance. Grandmaster 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Eupator, at the moment the source and justification, article edited by GM seems more convincing to me. What GM, put there is not something new - we are talking about conquers, not historical land populated only by Armenians, well noted by Strabo. I wonder what can be wrong and shameful if historical Armenia occupied and expanded into neighbours' lands. Why is it so difficult to accept this historical fact? Aren't there other examples from other cultures and histories of the world? Thanks --Ulvi I. 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Utik - Albania

Are there any references claiming that there ever was an Utik province in Albania? - Fedayee 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Armenian geography by Shirakatzi:

12. Ути, к западу от Аракса между Арцахом и рекою Курой, имеет 7 областей, которыми владеют албанцы: 1. Аранрот, 2. Три, 3. Ротпациан, 4. Агуэ, 5. Тучкатак, 6. Гардман, 7. Шикашен, 8. Собственный Ути с городом Партавом. Производит масличное дерево, (огуречное или) китровое дерево, а из птиц встречается катак. [9]

Uti, to the west from Araxes between Artsakh and the river of Kura, has 7 districts, which are currently in possession of Albanians.

Article from Iranica:

Arriving from Azerbaijan in 624, Heraclius decided to spend the winter in Albania. On the orders of Khosrow, the Albanian nobles were obliged to abandon Partaw in order to entrench themselves in fortified positions. Heraclius pitched his camp in the province of Uti and the Persian generals Shahrvaraz and Shahen took their stand, one facing him and the other at his rear. [10]

Grandmaster 07:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay but where does it say in the first source that there ever was an Albanian province of Utik? A region can be within it without being a province. The second source you provided is not clear on that either...but from the footnotes provided, I found this which says "Aluank province Utik"... This supports it, although the other two sources you provided do not mention it being a province. - Fedayee 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How does it not support it? "Heraclius pitched his camp in the province of Uti", I think it's pretty much clear. Grandmaster 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, he was campaigning during a war and he could've used the term to clarify the location geographically. He also does not say "the Albanian province of Utik"...but the other third source provided does. - Fedayee 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The source says that Heraclius decided to spend the winter in Albania, and that Heraclius pitched his camp in the province of Uti. It is pretty much clear that Uti was located in Albania, where Heraclius spent the winter. If he was spending winter somewhere else, the source would mention it. Grandmaster 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not as clear as you say it is because the source does not mention the Albanian province of Utik. But I don't understand what you are arguing about... I said the source that I have provided agrees with it, so we do not have disagreements with the content of the article. Please don't argue about things which are pretty much irrelevant with the article...don't you think there is already enough content disputes? - Fedayee 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this line:

The consensus among Armenian historians is that in ancient times the area, as well as the rest of Armenia, was inhabited by Armenians.

First, it is a weasel wording, second, there’s no consensus. According to Armenian sources, the region was populated by udis:

Ути — восьмая область Утика, двенадцатой провинции Вели¬кой Армении, с центром Партав. Название области распространилось на всю провинцию. Здесь первонально проживало племя утийцев, язык которых арабские источники называют арранским.

Uti – eighth district of Utik, twelfth province of Greater Armenia, with the center in Partav. The name of the district extended to the whole province. It was originally inhabited by the tribe of utis, the language of which Arab sources call Arranian. Agathangelos, History of St. Gregory

Also, I removed irrelevant quotes from Strabo, which do not mention Utik, and all personal interpretations. I added verbatim quotes from the sources reference made to. Grandmaster 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because the quote says that is was inhabited by the tribe of utis does not mean that there were no Armenians living there. Even if that was true and that we should assume from that quote that this Armenian source says that the utis lived there before Armenians, the quote which you have removed was the following: "The consensus among Armenian historians is that in ancient times the area, as well as the rest of Armenia, was inhabited by Armenians", which is true and it is not only a consensus among Armenian historians yet it is also a consensus amongst Western historians. Your removal was not warranted as there is no historian that I am aware of, besides Azerbaijani historians, who claim that in ancient times, there were no Armenians living there. Armenians did not start inhabiting the region in recent times...they have inhabited the region since ancient times. - Fedayee 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted 3 sources, including 1 Armenian, stating that the region was inhabited by Udis. There's a reason why the region is called Utik. I have not seen any quote stating otherwise. And I demonstrated that there's no consensus even among Armenian schloras, let alone third party ones. Grandmaster 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the text and corrected the viewpoints in the text. I doubt that Alexidze is a reliable source. He never published in reputable international academic sources (his most extensive publication is in the nationalist Azerb. magazine like Azerbaijan Internationale), there have been no updates from his "Albanian" research since 2000, and he is a close associate of nationalist Azerb. historians like F.Mamedova. Also, early Armenian historians like Khorenatsi mention unequivocally that the River Kura was "boundary of Armenian speech." Capasitor (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexidze is an international scholar, well known in the scholarly world. Also, the viewpoint that Udis were Armnian comes from nationalistic scholars like Ulubabyan, but no one takes such claims seriously. Hewsen clearly says that Udis were not Armenian:

What do we know of the native population of these regions - Arc'ax and Utik - prior to the Armenian conquest? Unfortunately, not very much. Greek, Roman, and Armenian authors together provide us with the names of several peoples living there, however - Utians, in Otene, Mycians, Caspians, Gargarians, Sakasenians, Gelians, Sodians, Lupenians, Balas[ak]anians, Parsians and Parrasians - and these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans.

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

Otene = Utik. As you can see, Hewsen says that Utis were certainly not Armenian. Grandmaster (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I see a quote from Walker supporting this claim:

However, this information is not confirmed by primary sources because solid accounts of continuous existence of non-Armenian civilizations in Utik and other eastern Armenian lands do not exist

All the notable scholars agree that Utis are the same people as Udis, people of Caucasian origin. Walker is an extremely pro-Armenian source, but I highly doubt that even he would make such ridiculous claims. Ulubabyan was criticized by the Russian scholar Shnirelrman for claiming that Udis were Armenians. Such claims are considered to be revisionist and nationalistic motivated. This is what Shnirelrman writes:

Вопреки традиционной точке зрения, идентифицирующей раннесредневековых утиев с этнографическими удинами (небольшим народом лезгинского происхождения, считающимся потомком средневековых албанов) (см., напр., Еремян, 1958а. С. 304), Б. Улубабян стал доказывать, что утии не просто были очень рано арменизированы (Мнацаканян, 1969. С. 18-20; Акопян 1987. С. 82), но едва ли не изначально являлись армянами (Улубабян, 1968; 1970).

If you need translation, let me know. The generally accepted view is that Utis were Udis. The claim that Utis were not Udis, but Armenians, is rejected by serious scholars. I added the reference to Shnirelman to the article. As for Chahin, this Armenian author is not considered a serious source by real experts. The reviews of the book you refer to are very critical. See for example:

In an ideal world, the book should have been written by someone trained both as an historian and an orientalist, with a knowledge of Vannic, Accadian, Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, Greek, Latin, Persian, Turkish, Russian, French and German, a competence in the archaeology, architecture and art of widely disparate periods, and first-hand knowledge of sites in both Soviet Armenia and the Turkish-occupied territories. In the real world, one cannot seriously find fault with a reader whose reading is largely in English and French, who has taken his archaeology and art from the best available books, and has been on a single lengthy visit to Soviet Armenia. But what is disappointing is that he does not know how to make the best use of primary sources in translation, and sometimes misunderstands his secondary authorities.

Thomas Braun
Reviewed work(s):
The Kingdom of Armenia by M. Chahin
The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1989), pp. 308-311. Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Those familiar with Urartu and Assyria will identify a number of points where they differ from Chahin, and will feel that his references are a little general and not entirely up-to-date. Those who are not thus familiar should certainly find their interest aroused, as he intended, by Chahin's enthusiastic and thought- provoking account of this fascinating subject, and be inspired to consult more specialist works.

A. E. Redgate
Reviewed work(s):
The Kingdom of Armenia by M. Chahin
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 51,

No. 3 (1988), pp. 570-571. Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies.

It is recommended to consult specialist works for accurate research on the subject, since Shahin's work is not such. Grandmaster (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And why do you distort Shirakatzi? He says that Utik at his time belonged to Albania:

Ути, к западу от Аракса между Арцахом и рекою Курой, имеет 7 областей, которыми владеют албанцы:

Uti, to the west of Araxes between Artsakh and Kura river, has 7 districts, which belong to Albanians.

Please do not replace Albania with Armenia anymore. Grandmaster (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Utik was Greater Armenia's province, in 387 when it passed not to the Caucasian Albania, but to the Albania province.

Besides why was infobox deleted?Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because, you're misleading the reader with your POV. Discuss your changes here first and if consensus is reached, we can make additions and changes to the article. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this what happened: that the infobox is removed because it is "POV" and then a call for discussion is proposed? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all I'm not misleading, I'm writing only the truth, don't like the truth, don't open this page. Second, Utik had been one of the provinces of Caucasian Albania, this all sentence is false, Utik was Greater Armenia's province. In 387 it passed to the Sassanid Empire, and passed to the Albania province. So don't revert my edits. In Wikipedia Utik is Greater Armenia's province, not Caucasian Albania's, and I have a right to add an infobox to Utik page as Greater Armenia's province.Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Aram-van, you cannot ignore the fact that Utik was Albania's province. I hope it wasn't your edit. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It was Albania's province only for a couple of years. Utik is Greater Armenia's province. Why you removed the infobox?