Gino

Azeris didn't change their name. The fact that some ignorant Russian scholar invented a term like "Caucasian Tatars" or whatever back in 18th century doesn't mean that it was Azeris who referred to themselves like that.

Probably. But if you think Azeris are nomads, you're once again wrong. As an ethnic group Azeris were formed in the Caucasus and present-day Northern Iran. That means this is their homeland. There are still Kurds who prefer a nomadic way of life. But I don't say that Kurds are nomads. So you guys stop sticking lables on people by their nationality. You have no moral right for that. The ancestor of all Indo-Europaeic nations (including Armenians) - Aryans - were once nomads too. They invaded large terrotiries assimilating native peoples. Should I say that peoples of the largest linguistic group in the world are nomads?

ArmenSarg, I'm not really interested in that historic lecture. But I agree with the rest of your posting. Especially with this: "the one who wins makes the history".

You guys can even name Shusha "Nor-Yerevan" if you want. As long as these territories are offically Azeri, those names do not play any important role.

I don't know when the village of Khankendi was founded.

By this I mean that the town was originally named with an Azeri toponym of Khankendi.

This reminds me of silly attempts to divide Azeri culture between Turks and Persians. Whatever deals with language goes to the Turkish section, whatever is related to culture goes to the Persian one. "Fuzuli and Khatai were Persians..." hahaha Even Persians do not claim that. I wouldn't be so sure about this if I were you. Fuzuli is considered the first classic poet to write in Azeri and Khatai was his follower. Fuzuli's poems are widely known in Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Iraq. I told you, you have no idea of what Azeri culture is. Oh, that is what you mean. Because at first it sounded like Azeris didn't have any writing system before 1920s at all. Well, back in early medieval time, when Islam spread all over the Middle East that was a rule for Muslim people to write in Arabic script (Persians didn't "give" Azeris anything) so all Muslims would be able to understand their writing. In 1918 Azeris started using Roman script (it was used along with the Arabic one till 1928). But in 1939 Stalin, who was afraid of Turkish influence in Azerbaijan, established a new Russian-based alphabet for Azeris. So basically, it wasn't Azeris' will to change it. That is why in 1992 Roman script was reestablished. But you claim that every civilized nation must have its own alphabetical system. Then what about English, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, Finns, Americans, Canadians, who use Latin alphabet and have always been using it, does it mean that they are all uncivilized? What about Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs using Greek-based alphabet which is also "not theirs"? Think before you state something like this. I choose not to believe people who may say anything for their own favour. And since "expired" encyclopedia (I wonder what defines its expiration; they are being republished over and over whatsoever) is the only unbiased source, I choose to believe it.

You are supposed to stay on topic, that's the rule. What do you mean: "you did not have a written language back then"? Where the hell did you get that from? What about Fuzuli, Khatai and a bunch of other medieval poets writing in Azeri? You know what, I think you know very little about Azerbaijan and its culture so you can't draw conclusions from those pointless and unproven statements. Prove it then. I don't need those bare sayings. Besides, "Nerqin Shen" is a very primitive name for what you guys consider a lull of the Armenian civilization. I have facts and sources on my side, you have nothing on yours. I don't believe those "thousands of people", I believe official data, records, scholars, and encyclopedias. Is it so difficult to admit that in Artsax there were Azeri cities and villages along with Armenian ones? Or are you guys having a compex whenever you see an evidence of something related to Azeris? Stop being a child. Just face the facts. Read about it. Think about it. Don't appeal to a biassed opinion without knowing the situation, approach to the problem as you hear about it for the first time.

Of course, there was no nationality back then and in 1918 all Azeris fell from the sky and formed a nation. Nonsense. Those who Russians used to call "Caucasian Tatars" are Azeris. It is the same thing called differently. It is a synonym, you can even say that. A Kurd is a Kurd. A Talyshi is a Talyshi. Don't mix them with the word "Azeri". And the word "Azeri", "Azerbaijani" is used by Brockgauz & Efron Encyclopedia as well as in "Caucasus" by Vassili Velichko referring to "Caucasian Tatars", and those were published before the Soviets came to power. But I'm not going to discuss this with you as I see no point in this discussion (you're going to stay where you are now and link this in weird ways to Artsaxi toponyms). Back to the topic. Do you agree with the fact that Shaumyanovsk was called Lower Aghjakend and Stepanakert was called Khankendi before 1938 and 1923 respectively and were changed by communists after Stepan Shaumyan in favour of local Armenians? If you don't, please prove your point by providing reliable sources. I won't answer if your post is not related to the topic. Thank you.

I don't have anything against those that have been Armenian for thousands of years. But changing the names that were given initially long time ago into something else is pointless. Anyway, the topic was about Artsaxi toponyms.

You didn't prove me that the town's name was offically Nerqin Shen or whatever you claim, while I brought you several examples and can bring you more. But how can you prove your point? No one is supposed to believe bare statements. In reply to this "Who in the hell is Baku to change the names of Armenian cities without their consent?" I might ask the same thing: "Who in the hell is Yerevan to change more than 250 Azeri toponyms in Armenia into Armenian ones?" http://mrashid.home.cern.ch/mrashid/genocid.html But no one complains, because it used to be the right of every parliament to change names as they want, for instance from Leningrad to St. Petersburg (or vice versa in 1917), from Constantinople to Istanbul, from Schtettin to Szecin and so on. And this does not make any sense to me "were you able to find a person with Azeri nationality backed by historically verifiable document before Russians came to Caucasus" and it is not even "by the way" as you mentioned. By which way? We are not even talking about nationality and origins here (you can check it in the title of the topic) and your question seems totally irrelevant. In the future please try to stay on topic. Anyway, if "Nerqin Shen" does not appear in any of the sources (neither Russian, nor any else, except for Armenian of course), that means Armenians were the ones who came up with the toponym which has never been used before.

And that means in 1921 the village was called Lower Aghjakend. So what are you arguing about? That sounds kinda childish. Sorry, but it really does. It seems you've been facing so many situations where Azeris cheat on translation of official documents that you came up with this kind of statement. But even if I ask you won't be able to show at least a couple of examples.

If you think you're right provide me a link to a reliable and non-Armenian source as a proof, because nowadays for scholars studying history of peoples from the ex-Soviet Union GSE in the most accurate source. The same information you can find in Great Encyclopedical Dicitonary, published in Moscow in 1998. I searched the Internet for "Nerqin Shen" and came up with nothing while the information about Lower Aghkakend is available even on the Armenian web-site: http://www.karabagh.am/eng/GlavTem/12etstrukkarabaxa.htm

ARR, I still think you're mistaken. I even provided a link to the well-known encyclopedia. Here is another link that proves the city being named after Stepan Shaumyan: http://delphiclub.ru/slova/N52.php Before 1923 it was just a small village for which the name of "Stepanakert" was too pompous. And here is a link for Shaumyanovsk which was once called Lower Aghjakend and was renamed after Shaumyan in 1938: http://www.oval.ru/cgi-bin/enc.cgi/83321.html. The name Lower Aghjakend was reestablished in 1992. Both sources are Russian. They are reliable and not biased. Just face it. At least Azeris do not deny that their cities Vartashen and Qutqashen (north-east Azerbaijan) have Armenian names.

Is that all you can do? Moron... AraManoogian, even if it means something in Armenian I wonder when this name first appeared on maps.

Seems, you guys have problems with your own language. "Qash" in Armenian means "weight". And there isn't any word like "tagh" meaning something like "neighbourhood" or "neighbour" (which is "harevan"). Stepanakert was named like that after Stepan Shumyan who was born in Khankendi. And even a kid knows that. I guess, it's impossible that the city was named like that before his birth Link As for Lachin, once populated mostly by Kurds and Azeris, not Armenians, before 1926 was called Abdallar, which is obviously an Azeri toponim. Sorry, but no "Kashataghs" and "Berdzors" at that time. Link

Albanians joined Armenian Orthodox Church in 705 when their church was abolished by Arabs after some Armenian priest's slander. The majority of Albanian chroniclers were Greek and Roman: Strabon, Plinius, Julius Solinus, Dionus Cassius, etc. Koriun and Movses Khorenatsi were the only Armenians who actually described Albania.

///Ah, I always get the two Movses (both Armenian)/// You wish. Why would an "Armenian" historian be know only for his "History of Albania" book?

You last posting made me laugh. Of course, I'm a fascist-faced devil who came here to assimilate you all. You were the one who started proposing pseudo-historical ideas and theories, calling Azeri nation "a tribe" and insultingly putting the word Azeri in quotation marks; claiming that Azersi have no formed religion, culture, language, state; fabricating theories about some a-la-Germany-1939 regime supposedly existing in Azerbaijan (sic!); and finally trying to prove me that I do not follow my own words. Of course, some big words and knowledge of Latin phrases can "prove" your opponet's yielding and screaming in pre-death agony and admitting his being wrong. But what you drew as a conclusion is a complete nonsence. I bet you did not understand yourself what you said in your last paragraphs. But that's not important for you. What is important is that you stopped the discussion on the most interesting moment, accused your opponent in yielding and being a fascist in a bold script and made everyone think that I have nothing to tell and got confused in my own ideas. I think you're not the one for a civilized discussion because from the very beginning you incited to yourself that no one but you is right. That is why you don't accept any facts that can argue with what you're saying (for ex, saying "No, it's a fact" with no proof). I think this clownade should be over. Good luck to you as well.

///No, it's a fact./// No, it's not. It is what you've been taught by Armenian schola. Qyzylbashis were Shi'a and Turkic speaking population of the Safavid Empire. ///only by the Armenian chronicler Movses Kaghnakatvetsi. /// Moses of Kalankatu was an Albanian historian who died 700 before the word "Qyzylbashi" started to be used. ///Turks make the claim of "alliance due to similarity in ethnogenesis"/// Doesn't Turkey have an alliance with Israel? ///No one considers the state of Azerbaijan as "a turkish one" except Azeri Turks themselves. /// There is not such a nation like "Azeri Turks". There are Azeris and that's it. And that means there is no need of playing the fool and describing what you desire as what really is. If Armenian academics declared Azeris "a wild Tatar tribe which was formed in mid-20th century" it doesn't become a fact no matter what.

You do not have to prove what has already been proven. And what has been proven is that Urartians were not of Turkic origin.

///They say that Turkic tribes, Turkish people, Kurds, Arabs, Mongols, Baluchi, Pasthu, Tajik, and so on live on their land. /// That is what you say, not the Persians. In all official census papers the word "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" always appered and still does whatsoever. Turkic tribes... ha-ha. And the thing that they do not allow neither Azeris, nor Kurds study in their own language - isn't that a linguo-cultural genocide? But do not tell me, that Azeris do not want to do so, I will be laughing for a long time if you say that. ///The other minorities also suffer the same fate. /// That's another lie. Armenians synthetically create and puff up the never taken place problems of "poor Talyshis", "poor Lezgis", "poor Tats", etc. in order to prove "the existence of fascism" in Azerbaijan, whereas unlike Armenia Azerbaijan and its people have always been tolerant towards people of other origins, race, languages, or religions. And everyone knows that the pogroms in Sumgait and Baku started because of Armenian SSR's motiveless claims on Nagorno-Artsax and not because Armenians were so good and Azeris were so bad to start torturing them with no reason.

///This is mere recategorization in the modern sense. Qyzylbashi was an adjective, and was never used in reference to a specific cultural group./// That's a lie and I already explained why. You have no idea of who Qyzylbashis are but still want to prove something to me. ///Of course they did have ethno-national characteristics. They referred to themselves as Armenians, and were of the Armenian community at large./// Most of the khans in 18th century (except for those who came from central Asia) also referred to them as Qyzylbashis. ///A large portion of the Kurds in the Kermanshah region in Iran are Shi'a, [...]. But the urbanized and pastoral Kurds in Kermanshah and Azerbaijan did assume the Shi'a religion./// Shi'as are only those who live in Azerbaijan. Kurds of Armenia are Yezidis. The rest are Sunnies (probably what you're talking about is a small Shi'a community). ///Really? Why should the Sunni Turkey, whose "national identity" developed so very independently from that of Shi'a Azerbaijan support Azerbaijan? Why should it care? You repeatedly state that "Azeris are a distinct cultural identity that developed in Azerbaijan, and are a result of the total cultural legacy of that land"/// So you think, political unions and economical & military support should be based on smilar ethnogenesis and history? Then I'm not surprised why Armenia has never had any allies. ///The period of Pan-Turkism in Azeribaijan will only pass once the Azeri Turks/// Azeris are not Turks. "Azeri Turk" is not even a histocally-correct name (consists of two words that are not connected to each other). Azeri is a name of a separate nation which was formed in the 12th century according to all sources except for Armenian. It's time for the Armenian academy to stop making stereotypes of their enemies considering them all "turqer" (Turks, Azeris, Caucasian Kurds, Talyshis, etc.). "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes."

You have no right to insult the entire nation by those stupid words you create. If you do not understand this you're more like "zver" yourself.

///Seems like you don't know what you're saying. /// Seems like you are reading what others say. I never claimed Azeris are straight descendents of peoples of Atropatene. And I won't give any answer to you until you learn how to spell Azeri properly.