According to many scholars, the name
Utik derives from the name of the ancient Udis/Utis, who, in their view, lived on both sides of the Kura or were a distinct tribe related to the Caucasian Albanian tribes living on the right side of the Kura. The ancient Udis/Utis have traditionally been considered the ancestors of the modern-day Udi people, who speak a
Lezgic language closely related to (but possibly not directly descended from) the
Caucasian Albanian language. However, different views exist about the exact relationship between the ancient groups called some variation of
Udi/
Uti, the modern-day Udis, and the toponym
Utik. Schulze has suggested that the ethnonyms derive from a much older, possibly descriptive toponym referring to the lowlands between the Kura River, the Arax, and the mountains of Karabakh and that Udi/Uti did not necessarily refer to any specific ethnic group, but rather the inhabitants of that region. As for the modern-day Udis, Schulze writes that "[t]he fact that today the Udis name themselves udi- is perhaps related to the adaption of the ethnonymic tradition in the former Uti region [i.e., Utik]." Alexan Hakobyan considers it likely that
Udi/
Uti was a common term among speakers of
Northeast Caucasian languages used to designate one's own or a different group (like *
arya and
*an-arya among Iranian peoples), hence why it was apparently applied to a number of Lezgic-speaking groups or their neighbors. He hypothesizes that the province received its name because of its proximity to the Utis/Udis on the other side of the Kura, or because a distinct Lezgic-speaking people by that name had once lived there and had been Armenized. Differing views exist about the timing of the presence of Armenians in Utik. The issue has occupied a prominent place in the disputes between Armenian and Azerbaijani scholars about the history of Caucasian Albania and the historical eastern regions of Armenia. In 1958, Yeremian expressed the view that the people of Utik came under Armenian rule in the 2nd century BC and were assimilated into the Armenians by the 4th–6th centuries AD, but subsequent works by Armenian scholars have argued that Armenians inhabited the right bank of the Kura from a much earlier period.
Bagrat Ulubabyan asserts that the people of Utik were not Armenized but were simply Armenians. This latter view has been criticized by some other Armenian scholars such as Paruyr Muradyan. While some Armenian scholars interpret this as an indication of the Armenian origin of the princes, Toumanoff argues that this merely indicates that they had ruled the area since time immemorial. Regarding the Arsacid period, Hewsen writes that "[i]t seems likely that except for Siwnik', eastern Armenia was not much more than armenized, if that" and that the Utians were "almost certainly a Caucasian tribe." According to Babken Harutiunian, under Arab rule a large part of the Armenian population of Utik left for Artsakh or was concentrated in the western part of the province. The territory of western Utik was the site of many important centers of medieval Armenian culture and learning, such as the monastic schools of
Khoranashat and Kayenadzor. Several important medieval Armenian scholars hailed from this region, such as
Vanakan Vardapet and
Kirakos Gandzaketsi. Later, in the 17th and 18th centuries, Armenians largely left the flatlands of historical Utik for nearby mountainous areas and foothills, as well as the urban center of Ganja. ==See also==