Talk:Urartu

Anti-Armenian additions

I have an issue with the recent anti-Armenian additions to this article about the "Armenianisation" of Urartu. The kingdom of Urartu are the forerunners of modern Armenians; this is widely accepted and uncontroversial. Indeed, the Armenian name for Armenians (հայեր, hayer) derives from the Urartian king Hayk. Reverting for lack of reliable source. Serouj (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, these issues are already covered in the existing "Debate over spoken language" section of the article. Serouj (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

its "widely accepted" in Armenia. Most of links "widely accepting" Armenian theory written by people with -yan ending surnames(Armenian ending)... You delete(or shorten) everything rejecting Armenian hypothese.. I dont reject that Proto-Armenians lived within borders of Urartu or contacted with them... But it will be totally amateur and unprofessional to say Urartu is Armenia or something meaning it.. Urarteans have spoken non-Indo-European and non Indo-Iranic language. When Armenian is Indo-European language most close to Greek and Balkan languages.. What proves Professor Diakonoff's theory of relation of Mushki(Frigian-came from Balkan) and Armenian relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberatium (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article carefully. It doesn't equate Urartu with Armenia. Serouj (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the theories presented on the inter-relations between Armenians and Urartians are far from originating from Armenia. They are the work of international scholars, as cited in the article. Serouj (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we put that aricle in here and Moderators or the ones who watching for the page decide to put or not...Because its translated from wikipedia on some other languages...

Why do the only speakers( less than 40 around the globe) of this language advise studying Nakh languages(which are indiginous languages to a few hundred kms north) before learning Urartu language? Armenian hypothesis about Urartu is only driven by nationalistic arguements, Armenian language is as alien to the territory as Greek and Kurdish or any other non-caucasian language(both south and north). Armenian Urartu, either by conquest or by popular assimilation (which is not likely). And Nakhs are not "far" from originating in Transcaucasia, of course if you dont mean the African Pump Theory.

The consept of Armenisation of Urartu

---

The consept of Armenisation of Urartu-range of theories that Urartu was an ancient Armenian State, wholly or mainly inhabited by ethnic Armenians, who spoke on the Armenian language. Concepts of Urartu Armenian affiliation are published primarily in Armenia, most often in popular literature, and the global scientific community rejected as unscientific and unprofessional. . A number of researchers who studied the development of Armenian history, believe that the emergence of such concepts was due to political rather than scientific considerations. . Science separates the history of Urartu and Armenia, believing that the Armenians are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia.

Background

---

Assumptions about the «Proto-Armenian» Urartu origin appeared in the XIX century, after the European specialists first discovered in the territory of the Armenian plateau evidence the existence of the state of Urartu. This assumptions also contributed to the fact that some ancient, and following them some medieval historians joined Urartian royal dynasty of Armenia. Further research Urartu, the development history of Urartu, the study of the Urartu language scholars were forced to drop these assumptions.

By the end of World War II, the Armenian SSR there were hopes for the return of Armenian lands lost by the events of the First World War and a political necessity to reaffirm the rights of Armenians in those lands. The initiative was officially supported by the Moscow. From this period, the Armenian historiography appear few reasonable historical work, showing autochthonous of Armenians in the Armenian highlands. Over the years, the trend of appearance of the Armenians in the region escalated, as the first Armenian public education, usually referred to as «Hayasa», is increasingly grown in size, leaving fewer and fewer places in the historical time and space to Urartu.

In the sixties the first work, it is alleged that the Armenian state of Urartu was written by Armenian geologist Suren Ayvazyan. Scientists have recognized the work Ayvazyan frivolous and unscientific, and his attempts to translate the texts without Urartian language education naive.Nevertheless Ayvazyan articles began to appear in the popular press, although the scientists clearly pointed to the gross errors, as well as the deliberate falsification of his work. By the eighties the idea of Ayvazyan becoming increasingly popular and inspired a professional historian Valeriy Khachatryan. He has published in scientific journals, a series of articles by associating with Proto-Armen Nairi, for which he was criticized and ridiculed by the Russian orientalist I.M. Diakonoff from the Armenian as well as Moscow's scientific journals. At the same time, Armenian bibliographer R. Ishkhanyan began to make similar Ayvazyan concept, which is already in the popular press. Happened in those years the restructuring of the Soviet Union raised a wave of nationalism in Armenia and the aggravation of the Karabakh issue - all these factors render a purely scientific discussion on the pages of popular print media in Armenia, which won the most popular point of view. . One of the followers Ishkhanyan, for example, wrote: «The Book Ishkhanyan - call. Call-old policy of the Turkish (Ottoman and Azeri) focused on the extraction of Armenians from their homeland ». These concepts criticized also by Russian scientists, such as Academician B. Piotrovsky and the Professor I.M. Diakonoff . According to academician Piotrovsky «you can not go on the ancient East, the direct ancestors of modern people. From the powerful nations of Front Asia is a great cultural heritage and ethnic minor» Liberatium (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

discussion of the development of Armenian nationalism is not "anti-Armenian". However, it is also off topic in an article on Urartu. Details on this should go to Armenian nationalism please. --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the development of Armenian nationalism is not "anti-Armenian", but most of what Liberatium tried to add certainly was (in both its content and its choice of wording). Meowy 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Its about Urartu so not offtopic.. choice of wording and content isnt mine Ive just translated it... and history falsification due national reasons is serious problem nowadays due improvement of internet... Liberatium (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? Your source is inconsistent with the facts and is a national attack in itself (sounds to me Azeri)... Needless to say, there are various theories, and it isn't unusual to consider any of the following: the merging of the Urartian and Armenian peoples, the emergence of Armenians from Urartians (among others), or the contemporaneous living of Urartians and Armenians side-by-side, etc. Serouj (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My source is not Azeri. Personally dont trust to Azeri in disputes about Armenia(and Armenians in diputes about Urartu).Not objective. My sources are mostly Russian, German and some other Eu sources. Liberatium (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this article one more time. I reverted this garbage you added from the Armenian nationalism article. The origins of Armenians from Urartu are accepted by international scholars... Umm... It only makes sense! The Armenian kingdom started immediately after the fall of Urartu! Armenians didn't just pop out of nowhere. Serouj (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing you called carbage is objective wievpoint of that "international scholars". Immediately after the fall of Urartu founded Orontid Armenian kingdom where people were speaking different language than Urartu. Maybe if today Armenia falls(hope that not happens) will be founded new country where somehow people will speak Japanese? Armenians didnt pop-up they migrated from Balkans. With their most close to Greek and Balkan language. Its the wievpoint of Diakonoff I think he is enough trusted Professor. Also even if you convince Turks that Urartu Hurri Troj Great Rome and Egypt, ancient Greece Sumeria and Atlantis were provinces of Great Armenia turks not going to give you even m2 of land occupied by them at present time... So please give up distorting history... Liberatium (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See this excerpt from this article: "A minority belief, advocated primarily by the official historiography of Armenia, but also supported by experts in Assyrian and Urartian studies such as Igor Diakonov, Giorgi Melikishvili, Mikhail Nikolsky, Ivan Mestchaninov, suggests that Urartian was solely the formal written language of the state, while its inhabitants, including the royal family, spoke Armenian.[28] The theory primarily hinges on the language the Urartian cuneiform inscriptions being very repetitive and scant in vocabulary (having as little as 350-400 roots). Furthermore, over 250 years of usage, it shows no development, which is taken to indicate that the language had ceased to be spoken before the time of the inscriptions or was used only for official purposes.[28] This belief is compatible with the "Armenian hypothesis" suggested by Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz Gamkrelidze, postulating the Armenian language as an in situ development of a 3rd millennium BC Proto-Indo-European language.[29]"

This is your beloved "Diakanoff"'s opinion. Really, you have no point... The Urartians just didn't disappear and have them replaced by Armenians overnight! They are the continuation of the same civilization! Serouj (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"turks not going to give you even m2 of land occupied by them at present time... So please give up distorting history..." - Liberatium.

Aha... So now we know what your agenda here is... To try to show that Armenians aren't really rooted in the Armenian Highland, what is the Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey today. Really you are fighting a losing battle... Serouj (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Urartian was solely the formal written language of the state, while its inhabitants, including the royal family, spoke Armenian. is Diakonoffs early theory that he rejected further when he found out some relativity with some other caucassus languages... Also I'm not trying to defend Turkey or their another nationalist theory... with Urartu or without, Armenia was in Armenian Highlands earlier than Turks at least 1500 years... Its also true that Urartuans didnt disapeared at once..its assimilated by new for that times(Armenian culture). We can also say that Armenians have genes of Urartuans also we can say that they have genes of Luwians, Persians, Greeks, Turks http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49a&id=2 , Mushkis, Scithyans and some Pheonicians... But it all means that Armenia has a part of Urartu. There is nothing saying that urartu was Armenia... Urartuan is totally different from Armenian gramatically phonetically and in glossar...(I know there are 70 loanwords in Armenian... there are some Latin words in Egyptian.. But doesnt prove that Egyptians are ancestors of Rome). I come to conclusion that its worthless you will just ignore everything I say as you did before...

I just realised that you distorted my nick too writing it "...Lieratium..." it's your own distortesy... Its bad that wiki is totally free to change and objective wievpoints cant live in here... thats why people shame you if you show wiki as source... I leave this project on this... not going to listen insults in my adress... stay in the castle you built on your lies... Liberatium (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don'tunderstand what you're point is... Nowhere in the article do we equate Urartu with Armenia... Serouj (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't mean to misspell your name. Assume good faith... I corrected the typo. Serouj (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

look, Liberatium, your text as it stands isn't acceptable for inclusion. We can work on it, but for this you need to drop the attitude of revert-warring. Also, this will be done at Talk:Armenian nationalism, where this is on topic, and not on this page. And no, Serouj, as you can read in this article, Orontid Armenia was not "the same civilization" as Urartu. It was the one that came after Urartu. --dab (𒁳) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Right dab, the Urartians disappeared and suddenly Armenians appeared the next year. Genius! Serouj (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to read the article and you clearly did not. Why "next year"? The Armenians occupied the territory of the failing Urartu kingdom, just like the Lombards settled in Italy, the Greeks in Minoan Crete, etc. This happens all the time. Also, if you think it is so tremendously important that Schulze originally set out for a wild goose chase for queen Semiramis, the least you can do is present some sort of reference for the point. The suggestion, quoted from the EIEC, that the pre-Proto-Armenians, perhaps the "Mushki", arrived in the 7th century BC and gradually merged with the native population over the following century to produce the Proto-Armenians is completely reasonable and plausible, I don't see your problem. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder (as do we all) why you thought it tremendously important to remove the content mentioning that it was the words of an medieval Armenian chronicler describing the existence of Urartian remains that initiated the European investigations which led to the rediscovery of Urartu? I think an actual quote from the Khorenatsi text describing those remains would be a useful addition to the article - I've got one, but it is from a Turkish publication by Oktay Belli. However, as well as not wanting to give credibility to a work of propaganda by quoting from it, it is not clear if the English text it uses is a translation from Turkish text or is a direct quote from one of the English translations of Khorenatsi. I don't have access to an English translation, does someone else? Meowy 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I, too, was wondering why dab found it so important to remove that text...

Meowy, I have access to Patmutʻiwn Hayotsʻ = History of the Armenians. Is this what you're looking for? Serouj (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. In the bibliography of the O. Belli book (Urartian Irrigation canals in Eastern Anatolia) the translation by Robert Thomson ("History of the Armenians") is listed, but it is not clear from the text if the quote is taken direct from Thomson or if it has undergone a translation into Turkish and then been translated back into English (the book is in Turkish and English). Some of the text reads "Now on the side of the rock that faces the sun, on which today no one can scratch a line with an iron point such is the hardness of the surface, she had carved out various temples and treasure houses and wide caverns: no one knows how she formed such wonderful constructions. And over the entire surface of the rock, smoothing it like wax with a stylus, she inscribed many texts, the mere sight of which makes anyone marvel". Meowy 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. So here is the History of the Armenians translated by Robert Thomson in 1978. There is a library near me that has it. Will take a look at some point... Serouj (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"That the medieval Armenians were in a very significant sense of Urartians descent can be inferred from Moses of Khoren's account of Hayk and of the rulers who were his descendants." - Redgate, Anne Elizabeth (1999), "Origins", The Armenians (1st ed.), Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, p. 24, ISBN 0-631-22037-2

My point is: Soviet Armenians were not the first to associate the Urartians as the descendants of Armenians! Indeed, medieval Armenian historians did, too, as evidenced by Moses of Khoren. (Who Redgate considers an 8th century historian.) Serouj (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

but this wasn't nationalism, it was just genealogy. Nationalism of the sort you make it your task to showcase on these talkpages is a product of the 19th century (not of the Soviet era, but of the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire). I mean, how sad is it that you have such strong patriotic sentiments but you haven't even bothered to learn about the origins of these sentiments? You would profit from sitting down and reading up on the history of nationalism.

To "Meowy", in reply to your "question", this is an article on the Iron Age kingdom, not on medieval Armenian philology. I accept your reference, but I don't see why you had to make such a scene instead of just duly adding it when requested to do so. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

dab... How "sad" is it that you think Armenian national sentiment originated in the 19th century? That was called the recent Armenian Renaissance or Enlightenment. Had you known Armenian history in more depth, you'd know that this wasn't the only such national reawakening but was one of a long set of them throughout history (especially during times of peace in Armenia -- a.k.a. the "Armenian Highland"). Unlike most other nations, the Armenian nation is one of only 3 nations to have survived since Antiquity. As such, the idea of an Armenian "nation" isn't one that was created during the era you mention; it was merely a time of yet another reawakening. Serouj (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

One of three? Ancient India, China and Japan. That's three others right there. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also dab, actually go and READ Thomson's translation of Moses of Khoren, and THEN tell me that "this wasn't nationalism, it was just genealogy." Sorry to point this out, but you tend to make assertions in areas where you have no idea what you're talking about. Serouj (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Chahin, who is used as a reference, is not a good source. He is not a professional historian, and his book was not well received by professionals. Redgate, who is quoted above, said about Chahin's book:

He quotes, summarizes, and generally faithfully follows his authorities, but although he was not, it seems, before his retirement, either a professional historian or a specialist in Urartu, he is not intimidated by them. He displays personal enthusiasm and admiration for his subject, and an independent viewpoint, sometimes bringing in very broad historical perspectives.

In conclusion, she says:

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

So it is better to consult more specialist works. Grandmaster 11:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If in the above you are thinking about the citation for Moses of Khoren's description, I have replaced Chahin with that of H.F.B. Lynch, a better source and one which has footnotes giving the original sources for the information. The Chahin book contains no original material and thus, apart from perhaps its misleading title, contains nothing very extreme or academically marginal. However, as the review says, the material within it comes from a variety of sources, some of which has been overtaken by new research. Parts of it will still be acceptable as a source if those limitations are understood (which is true for any source). Meowy 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Chahin also reproduces the Moses of Khoren text, but it is worded very differently from the one in the Belli book, though both books give the R. W. Thomson translation as their source! The Belli text sounds better imo, and is also more accurate in its description. For example, where the Belli text has "Now on the side of the rock that faces the sun", the Chahin text has "the eastern side of the mountain". Is Chahin simplifying the Thomsom translation and making a mistake by not realising that the side of the rock with the inscriptions is actually the south side? Or is Belli secretly "correcting" things in the translation since he knows it is the south side, not the east side? Meowy 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why Redgate advises us "to consult more specialist works. Grandmaster 05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Redgate does not "advise us to consult more specialist works", Redgate says the Chahin book will inspire those interested in the subject to read the more specialist works. Meowy 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since Chahin's work is not such. Grandmaster 15:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"nationalism" section

This section is an absolutely faithful rendition of the WP:RS (Cambridge University Press) cited, almost to the point of copyright violation. I will thank you for not blanking additions that are (a) pertinent and (b) closely referenced to academic sources. Yes, the section is a neutral and scholarly evaluation of the phenomenon of Armenian patriotism. If you think the presentation is biased as it stands, the burden is on you to cite equally academic sources in contradiction to the ones already mentioned. Removal purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an option you have. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey dab, that racist junk you added cannot be true as the lineage of Urartu (Biainili) and Armenians was established by Moses of Khoren in the FIFTH OR EIGHTH CENTURY! It's not a 19th or 20th century phenomenon that links Urartu and Armenians! Get your facts straight... Serouj (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this section is of relevance, but of course, I believe it could have been written much better. It was unnecessarily inflammatory and a bit too plagiarist, as I noted on Dbachmann's talk page. I'll take a stab with rewriting it. By the way, Dbachmann didn't make anything up; his text was a faithful, albeit nearly identical, representation of the work by Armenia scholars. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excepting for "Urartu has come to play a role in 19th to 20th century Armenian nationalism": none of the two sources say so. Sardur (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The section seems way to long, and the phrase "proto-Armenian" seems to be being misrepresented. I think it is usually meant to refer to the Armenian language, not Armenian as an ethnicity. And there is serious POV wording. We are told that "The suggestion that the Armenians had also been newcomers to the region, even if 1500 years earlier than the Turks, might rise, within the logic of ethnic nationalism, the possibility that Turkish and Armenian claims to the territory were "morally equal". Identification with the distant glories of Urartu and its prehistoric forerunners can be used to reassert Armenian "indigeneity". What a reversal of reality! It is the Turkish denial of ANY Armenian connection with Urartu that is intended to deny any Armenian claim to have had a long connection to territories now within Turkey. And Turkish nationalists still claim that the Urartians (along with the Hittites) were actually Turks. Meowy 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think several points need to be mentioned and the issue needs to be clearly drawn out. Being interested in Armenian and regional history in general, I would like to offer several points missed in the article:

A) In the Behistun Old Persian inscription, Armenia (Armina) is used while in the Babylonian Behistun inscription, Urartu is used. This shows long term dual usage for these two term for the same territory. This is 2500 years ago by the way, pre-dating Moses of Choren by at least one thousand years. This needs to be mentioned that the term. What does this imply? Urartu and Armenia denoted the same territory and were two different names for the same land 2500 years ago.

B) I agree with dab on the fact that Soviet sources should generally be rejected and were used for nation building. However a general article on USSR era nation building is prefered. It should cover not only Armenia, but Georgia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, other countries of Central Asia and other regions.

C) Having said that, there are numerous Western references to what is called: Hurro-Urartian Substratum in Armenian. A sources state: "The Armenian words for apple, mulberry, and plum, all native to the Armenian plateau, are from the Hurro-Urartian language of early history" and there is a lot of material on this substratum in Armenian. So while one cannot claim Urartrians are the linguistic ancestors of Armenians, they seem to have been a major part of the formation of Armenian people and my guess is that the proto-IE speaking Armenians constituted a ruling elite rather who were able to spread their language.

Diakonov:

“ From all that has been set forth it is evident that the history of the Armenian people is a direct continuation of the history not only of the Proto-Armenians, but also (and to no lesser degree) of the Hurrians, the Urartians, and the Luwians. The main mass of the Armenian nation consists of their descendants; there was a historical moment when a person might speak Old Armenians, his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was more likely to have been bilingual, while his forefath was a pure Hurrian or Urartrian. ”

Note the part:'and to no lesser degree is not my own insertion. So the section on Armenians and Urartu should be written with these in mind. The stuff from Moses of Choren (which in my opinion is a composite work that has been changed over the centuries much like some Pesrian manuscripts which have been tampered with additions from later centuries) naming a major Urartu king also shows that Urartu was not integrated in the 20th century but rather was somewhat known. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"racist junk" is a non-starter. This is a scholarly discussion of nationalism. And oh, suddenly the treatment of Armenians is "too long" for this article? After years and years of cheap attempts of sneaking discussions of Armenians into the Urartu article, as soon as it is done properly, i.e. neutrally and based on scholarly sources, we would rather not have that content after all? Give me a break.

I can ceratinly add scare quotes to the passages that are taken verbatim from the source cited, but as long as there is no citation of a scholarly reference that presents a competing evaluation, accusations of NPOV violations are empty.

You wanted to discuss Armenian nationalism? I did your job for you and found a couple of academic references discussing Armenian nationalism. you are not happy with the sources I came up with? Well, then it the burden would seem lie with you to come up with yet more academic references that you like better. sheesh. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have this "nationalism" section, giving details of marginal and unacademic theories connected to Urartu, then they need to be balanced by including Turkish marginal and unacademic theories. Clive Foss, writing in "Armenian Van/Vaspurakan", (Chapter 13, "The Atrocious Armenians of Van - The Modern Turkish View")gives some brief details of the Turkish attempts during the early Turkish Republic period to make the Urartians into Turks. In Suleyman Sabri's "A History of Van and Studies on the Kurds", published in 1928 and reprinted in 1982, the Urartians are called Urartian Turks and the Armenians were only brought into the Van area by the Medes in the 6th century BC: prior to that the book claims the area had been exclusively populated by Turks. In "Van in History" by Cengiz Alper published in 1969 the Urartians are still presented as being Turks. Foss says this, and the various other historical distortions and inventions he details, was aimed at "the obliteration of Armenian history and with it any claim to priority or to Van itself". Meowy 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

by all means! This is the proper way to build Wikipedia: Build up a section including as many WP:RS as we can, and as it grows too long for the article, branch it out via {{main}}. You are certainly welcome to introduce scholarly discussions of Urartu in Turkish nationalism. I find these "Turkish Urartians" highly interesting. Plus, these Turkish attempts at plagiarizing "Urartian roots" obviously serves as an excellent motivation of why the Armenians are so eager to insist that they are the real Urartians. When I say "obviously", I mean of course "obvious to anyone acquainted with the dynamics of ethnic nationalism", not beacuse this makes any kind of sense rationally. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand that this is about "Turanism": The hypothesis of Turanian languages is to Turanists what the Indo-European hypothesis was to the Aryanists. They take languages, turn them into racial categories, and the identify with whichever ancient people that catches their fancy. Of course, the hypothesis that the Hurro-Urartian language is in any way related to the Altaic group is extremely far-fetched. You need to link Hurrian to Caucasian, and then Caucasian to Altaic, as here. You might as well go all the way and include Indo-European as well, and conclude that "Turks are Armenians" or "Armenians are Turks" and stop the ethnic bickerung altogether. But that wouldn't of course appeal to the patriots, who can only be patriots as long as there is some shady group out there posing a threat to the holy motherland.

Perhaps you can help me find good sources on this? google books doesn't nearly yield as good results as in the case of Armenian nationalism. From a preview I gather that "In 1931, the 'Turkish Historical Society' was founded; its aim was to [... show that?] the cuneiform tablets found in Van were related to Turanian races [...]". --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ask this guy: User:Babylonazerbaijan - he seems to think they spoke Azeri Turkish! Meowy 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read more about it in a book about the history of the excavations of Hittite sites. But it was a long time ago and I can't remember the book's name. About Urartu it said that since the Hittites were considered to be Turks (or at the very least "honorary" Turks) under Ataturk's ideology, and because the Urartians were considered as sort of close cousins of the Hittites, the Urartians were also presented as being Turks. And then a whole Turkish pseudo-science was invented to back up the "Urartian Turks" theory. I also think the first edition of the Blue Guide to Turkey (published the early 1990s) may mention "Urartian Turks" in its introduction, which was written by a Turkish ambassador. I remeber that it mentioned Ataturk's "Sun Theory" as if it were fact and universally accepted as the truth. Meowy 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see Can Erimtan's "Hittites, Ottomans and Turks - Agaoglu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist construction of Turkish nationhood in Anatolia" in Anatolian Studies, vol. 58, 2008. A rather timid toe-dipping into the subject by a Turkish author who obviously doesn't want to be drowned by a mob of Turkish nationalists. Meowy 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

so, are we going to do an encyclopedic coverage of Urartu in Turkish nationalism or what? I am tired of the oblique attacks via edit summaries for my pains[1]. I commend your efforts to take the encyclopedic approach, Meowy, and I suggest we insert a discussion of the Pan-Turanian stuff and change the section header to "In ethnic nationalism" to accommodate both Armenian and Turkish chauvinists. The problem would seem to be that while Armenian nationalism is very well documented in academic literature, including the obsession with Urartu, coverage on "Urartian Turks" is rather thin, probably because this idea is too far out or marginal to be taken seriously even within Turkish nationalism. The Erimtan article title sounds promising, but the text does not appear to be available online. Can you tell me whether the article does address "Urartian Turks" at all? --dab (𒁳) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jstor has most articles from Anatolian Studies, but it doesn't seem to have the latest issue yet (2008 is the most recent one). The author does not directly mention Urartu anywhere in the article, just mentions "related peoples" as also being classified as being Turks along with the Hittites. But it gives useful background material about the Turkish Historical Society, its practices and publications, and the ethos of Kemalist Turkey at that time. The article is actually interesting also because it indicates how far Turkish academics consider they can go. For example, the author is completely non-judgemental, tip-toes around Attaturk's personal input, never implies that these theories and the attitudes that created them are still propagated by sections of the Turkish establishment, and for anything slightly controversial the author uses quotes from other sources rather than the author's own words. A bit like the recently published Talaat "Black book" papers whose author excused himself by saying he was only reproducing exactly what Talaat had written and was offering no opinions or interpretations about what they contained. For this Wikipedia article, I think first thing to do is rename the "Discovery" section "Rediscovery of Urartu", and then move that section below the "History" section. Then create a new section below that, perhaps named "Controversies and contested issues" in which FIRSTLY the various serious but still contested or controversial academic theories regarding Urartu are set out. That serious stuff would include the connections between proto-Armenian and Urartian. Then, at the end, we briefly cover the non-academic pseudo-history theories such as the "Turkish Urartians" and the extreme end of the Nationalistic Armenian ethnogenesis stuff. Meowy 15:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I am afraid we don't have any material about "Urartu and Turkish nationalism" for inclusion in this article, but the wider topic of Turanism and related pseudohistory should of course be discussed in the Turkish nationalism article. Perhaps efforts invested in trying to prevent the presentation of Armenian nationalism would be better invested in building the Turkish nationalism article.

I am not aware of any serious literature on "connections between proto-Armenian and Urartian", but I would be most interested in reading about this. There does seem to be Soviet era literature on this, notably by Diakonoff, which would certainly be quotable, but which is also hard to access. The EIEC says that Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism which I am perfectly happy to accept as a valid scenario, or indeed the most plausible one, since you can't switch from one language to another in a year, or even in twenty years. Comparing this with the death of Gaulish under Roman rule, there would likely have been Armenian-Urartian bilingualism from the 6th and maybe into the 4th or 3rd century BC. But I am not aware of any unambiguous Urartian loans in Armenian.

But I suppose this is material that belongs on the proto-Armenian article since it would be about post-Urartian events (a lingering Urartian substrate influencing the proto-Armenian language), not about Urartu proper. I do not think this bilingual scenario is at all "disputed", it is very plausible, but simply prehistoric so we can't check. It is also of limited relevance to the kingdom of Urartu proper. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a source listing 16 possible Hurro-Urartian loans in Armenian, see here. It is beyond me how you guys can spend literaly years with trolling about how Armenians are Urartians and yet leave it to me to do this kind of research. Probably a confusion of what Wikipedia is trying to do. Please see WP:NOT and if you decide you don't want to do any work and prefer general patriotic ranting consider switching to google groups. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is beyond me how you guys can spend literaly years with trolling about how Armenians are Urartians", " general patriotic ranting" - more Dbachmannisms! Are you capable of interacting politely with anyone? Little wonder everyone regards every word you write with contempt, and every edit you make with well-founded suspicion. BTW, perhaps your understanding of the word is different from normal usage, but "research" is not just searching Jstor for articles containing the words "Urartian" and "Armenian". Meowy 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised dbachmanisms

"classical"=the theory based on Classical Greek sources in conjunction with the available archaeological data of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupator (talk • contribs)

• you want to go easy on the personal attacks.
• then you want to stop introducing inaccuracies and bias such as "Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, a Georgian scholar, contends that" -- it may be that Tsetskhladze is Georgian, but (a) I fail to see the relevance of this seeing that the article in question was published academically, and (b) the quote is from an article co-authored by Philip L. Kohl and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, and it is unclear why you single out Tsetskhladze and his nationality in the text. The article is by Kohl and Tsetskhladze, in a volume on nationalism edited by Kohl and Fawcett and published with Cambridge University Press.
• the section on Armenian ethnogenesis is Urartu#Armenian_ethnogenesis. Stop trying to coatrack about Iron Age Armenian ethnogenesis in Urartu#In_Armenian_nationalism, the section of modern Armenian nationalism. It is your problem, and that of your fellow-nationalists, that you keep confusing the Iron Age with the present. The Iron Age is not the present, however, and won't be able to force Wikipedia to follow your ahistorical fallacies. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "dbachmanisms" are the use of phrases like "fellow-nationalists", and "ahistorical fallacies" to attack and dismiss editors. Meowy 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the "denazification". Godwin's law. I don't see how it is an attack to call a fallacy a fallacy, or nationalism nationalism. "Dbachmannism" otoh doesn't mean anything and doesn't serve any purpose in terms of constructive criticism. It just poisons the well and demonstrates Eupator's unwillingness to edit in good faith. --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Some of us have real jobs. Typical example of the pot calling the kettle black. I'll deal with you in due time and respond to your vile threats. In the meantime, be aware that AA2 applies to everyone, so you are well within the boundaries of sanctions after so many reverts and countless personal attacks.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"vile threats", eh? as in "don't call people Nazis, or else"? I take "dbachmanism" to mean "paying utmost attention to encyclopedicity and neutrality in the face of agenda-driven trolling" and I thank you for appreciating my efforts. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence "paying utmost attention to encyclopedicity and neutrality in the face of agenda-driven trolling" is a good example of a dbachmanism. Meowy 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you. then may I suggest that we remove the "disputed" tag until some genuine point (other than the basic WP:IDONTLIKEIT from self-described Armenian patriots) is raised. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And "self-described Armenian patriots" is yet another dbachmanism. Meowy 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, why don't you go and edit some article on Armenia instead of trying my goat: it's not going to work. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the insertion of Armenian Nationalism section in this topic is itself a anti-Armenian act. What does it mean to have mostly non-armenian references and hint that only the Armenian version is so called "Nationalist". Why don't you insert that the rest is "European Facist" inventions. Just lik you have hinted the "Soviet" influence. Also, some of these references are quite old, and in the last 10 years, there have been a lot of new evidence to actually prove that "Urartu" is indeed misread, and should be "Ararat". How can people read cuniform that have no vowels?

Isn't here any moderator to take care of all this bigotry

Don't you people have had enough of all this nationalistic and religious stupidity?

I came here to ask about Chechen villager who deciphered the language, only to find out crybabies who doesnt give a damn about Urartians. They were neither Turks nor Armenians, They were Chechecns. And no there has been no blend with Chechens and Armenians, on the other hand Armenian muslims have been absorbed in to Kurdish and Turkish society. If you want land, first give what you have to the true owners, Chechens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.236.50.123 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They were NOT Chechens dude, Chechnya is new founded state as any other currently existing state.. I'm Chechen myself and compared all the Hurrian and Urartian glossaries with Chechen... yes there is similarity about %60... so we can say they are in distinct relationship with Nakh and Daghestani tribes...(we say it according scholars states the same) but to say Armenians Nakhs or Daghestani Peoples or Kurds are descendants you need much more evidences.. so please give up on such Nationalist unobjective claims you discgrace us... Nakh 04:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

navigation templates

The most pertinent template would probably be {{Iron Age}}. {{History of Armenia}} is just one of several other templates that may be arguable (among various "Ancient Near East", History of Turkey", "History of Iran", "History of Anatolia" (etc.) templates. Please note that "Article A is linked from template T" does not imply that "Template T must be transcluded from article A". Not at all.

If you think this article absolutely needs to be graced with a "navigation template", make it {{Iron Age}}. But in my book, this is clutter that distracts from the article. The more flags and other gimmicks are sported on a template, the less acceptable it will be to transclude it from tenuously related articles. The most acceptable navigation templates are the "footers" that sit collapsed at the article bottom, because they don't clutter up the article body. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned it was cluttering, so I moved it to a more suitable place. If its not correct on your browser its showing some other view not cluttering on mine. Since the template has always been here in the page, and it is in the History of Armenia template, why shouldnt it be in the page? Compare with other History templates like that of Persian and Kurdish. They have it in their template and in those certain pages as well. Compare in the "Chinese history" template. How come they (the Chinese people's history) have there history templates from "3rd millenium BC"?? I thought that modern people didnt exist any earlier than 2nd millenium BC's half? Soukrot (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is nationalism, why is Chinese history from 3rd millennium BC? Hopefully I get a good answer from you dab, because I heard from you that no "modern people" exist from half of 2nd millennium BC, or even earlier, which is the case in Chinese. I think that is nationalism too for sure about Chinese (modern people still today) 5000 year history hah. Soukrot (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP. If you find misplaced templates in other articles, feel free to remove them too.--dab (𒁳) 17:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Soukrat, modern people existed toooo much ealier than 3000 BC. Man begin to write history circa 3000 BC. People were building houses keeps temples even palaces for their king and they had to many home appliances 3000BC. dont you think they eveluted from monkey and instantly begun to build Temple tower in Sumeria? There is evidence that people lived between 40.000 and 70.000 BC used sea shells as decoration... So they had some understanding of arts that is enough evidence to put them in to modern human class... Also you told it not says Urartu was Armenian state and moved it in Geography topic, but you have Armenian Repub. emblem on it not the geographic image of Armenian Highlands. also there are such point "foreign rule" there is no foreign rule for a geographic unit... mountains doesnt care who is ruling.. than this template means Armenia not as geographic zone but as Ethnic Group. If you want to be acceptable and objective "remove" that template.. and correct it "Prehistory of Armenia" → "Before Armanian rule" Liberatium (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

“The most pertinent template would probably be {{Iron Age}}“ Good idea. Nakh 03:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New Research about Armenian/Urartu Language Comparison

This article has anti-Armenian viewpoints, it has acted selectively on the references and has not included most recent new discoveries that have been published in the last 10 years. Perhaps, the main reason for the gap is the nature of the recent publications, they are mostly in Armenian. Furthermore, since there is a selective bias in picking the references together with possibly the language barrier of the author, the article becomes mostly outdated material. In order for this article to become scientific, the author should remove some anti-Armenian sections, such as the Armenian-Nationalist section. It is also important to be more objective towards Armenian literature, for if it is the only key to the solution, the exclusion of it could imply the unscientific approach of the article. I believe the root of the problem is the review of the concept of the Proto-Indo-European language and the fundamental change of language comparison and analysis. For example, saying that the most loan words (70 in number) are from Armenian, and also saying that the most similarities are with the North Caucasian languages, makes the problem very clear. Between Urartu and the North, there lies Armenia. And Languages don’t just jump from one region to the other skipping the land area in between. This by itself is indeed an indication that we are missing a lot of facts. The facts have already been proven by Sarkis Ayvasyan’s linguistic work (see the related books ì²ÜÆ Â²¶²ìàðàôÂÚ²Ü êºä²¶Æð ²ðҲܲ¶ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÀ 2003, 2006 “The inscriptions of Kingdom of Van” I 2003, and II 2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsAraratNotUrartu (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article can hardly have "anti-Armenian viewpoints" seeing that it isn't even about Armenia in the first place, any more than it is about Turkey or Kurdistan. If you think it is "anti-Armenian" if the article doesn't take patriotic pseudolinguistics and historical fantasy at face value, that would seem to be your problem, not Wikipedia's. I get like three google hits on "Sarkis Ayvasyan". If this author has really made a contribution to Urartian epigraphy, cite him at Urartian language, and kindly point us to some evidence that his work has been peer-reviewed. --dab (𒁳) 09:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary is not accurate, but the reason why I restored the previous version is that the revisionist views on Urartu began flourishing in 1960s, not 1980s. See Shnirelman's book about this. Maybe that section needs rewriting and shortening, but any claims should be properly sourced. Grandmaster 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And the previous version is in some way more neutral? The language of "Armenian chauvinists" just shows false this is. What is worse is that Dbachmann has just plagiarized the texts of several authors; Wiki rules dictate that if plagiarism has occurred, it is incumbent upon editors to remove and delete that text. But Eup's version was the compromise. Even if some Armenians wrote books back in the 1960s directly identifying the Urartians with the Armenians, they were quickly condemned by respected Armenian intellectuals like M. Katvalyan, Gagik Sargsyan, Suren Yeremyan; even during the heyday of Perestroika these scholars were issuing caution to making such statements. You disingenously say that there are cited no sources but that's such an out and out lie: the sources cited were "For example, see the first chapters of the first volume of (Armenian) Հայ Ժողովրդի Պատմություն (History of the Armenian People). Yerevan, Armenian SSR: Armenian Academy of Sciences, 1970"; and George Bournoutian. A History of the Armenian People. Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2006, p. 17. So did you even bother reading the text or was this a blind revert?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the book by Victor Schnirelmann, a Russian scholar who made a very detailed research on this issue. And he says that the theories about Urartu and Hayasa being Armenian states started flourishing in Armenia after the WWII, around late 1950s - early 1960s. They are still popular in Armenia, with such scholars like Armen Aivazian, Zulalian, etc. Such theories had tacit or open support of many Armenian scholars, including academicians of the academy of sciences. So I think that we need a third part source to describe when these theories became popular. The text may need a rewrite or toning down, and there's an article by Ronald Suny that touches upon this issue, which also might be useful. Grandmaster 06:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But those were fringe viewpoints and they should be presented as such - mainstream Armenian scholars, especially those in the Armenian Academy of Sciences, may have lent a sympathetic ear to those arguments but that does not mean they supported their views. The way the section is written is just plain dishonest. In the History of the Armenian People the first chapters written by Gagik Sargsyan and Suren Yeremyan largely agree with Diakonov's thesis. And even as archaeological and linguistic studies were being published in the 1980s, suggesting that Armenians were indigenous in their homeland, they chose not to jump to conclusions and objectively study the material; they even publicly condemned those who hastily adopted such views (for which, I can provide numerous sources).

But the current way this section is written demands redress; since it's plagiarized, it should be deleted or rewritten. The fact that you actually went ahead and reverted me (without even understanding what the "Classical thesis" even is) and didn't bother to keep the fact tag raises questions. As Nepaheshgar kindly provided above, Diakonov states that Armenian and Urartian history are deeply intertwined:

From all that has been set forth it is evident that the history of the Armenian people is a direct continuation of the history not only of the Proto-Armenians, but also (and to no lesser degree) of the Hurrians, the Urartians, and the Luwians. The main mass of the Armenian nation consists of their descendants; there was a historical moment when a person might speak Old Armenians, his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather was more likely to have been bilingual, while his forefath was a pure Hurrian or Urartrian.

That template had been resting there for quite sometime until someone decided to remove it on the grounds of pseudo-history. It can and should be readded with Diakonov's quote in mind.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I mean: [2] The info that Nishkid restored is not factually accurate. Revisionist theories in Armenia started emerging not after Gamkrelidze-Ivanov theory was proposed, but long before, in the 1960s. I wanted that to be corrected, before such info is included. As for the template, we have a similar situation in the article about Caucasian Albania, where a group of Armenian users removes the template of the History of Azerbaijan, even though most Albanians became Turkified a played a role in formation of Azerbaijani people, i.e. similar to the role of Urartians in formation of Armenian people. It looks like a double standard by a group of editors in similar situations. Grandmaster 08:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and? Just fringe opinions. Just because someone ("junior and less careful") published such info didn't mean his opinions became popular. The Caucasian Albanians, as Robert Hewsen clearly notes, disappeared as a nation and a state in the 10th century. They were absorbed into the Armenian, Georgian, and possibly Arab milieus but weren't Turkified because Turks did not even begin to settle in the region until the late 11th/early 12th centuries. Your logic is convoluted and cannot be applied in the case of the Azeri ethnogenesis; using that argument, we might as well say today's Turks, Circassians, and Kurds are the descendants of Armenians, considering the level of forced mixing that occurred during the Armenian Genocide.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not "plagiarized" anybody, I have quoted. Sheesh, it isn't plagiarism if you give attribution. If you don't like my phrasing suggest improvements, but you won't be able to remove this material by waving your hands about "plagiarism". This article is about Urartu. It can mention that Armenian nationalism turned Urartu into some sort of national myth, but this is marginal to the topic. Please take your rants about Azeri or Turkish ethnogensis and the Armenian genocide to some page where they are at least on topic. --dab (𒁳) 20:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

maybe Armenian nationalists try to (rightly or wrongly) connect Urartu to Armenia, most Turkish (Azeri) nationalists try to both disconnect Urartu from Armenia and simultaneously connect to Turkish ethnicity. I think the entire "In Armenian nationalism" section is incomplete, misleading, inappropriate and maybe even offensive.

- Incomplete because other nationalistic claims (Chechen, Turkish, Georgian…) are left out. Only the Armenian nationalism is mentioned.

- Misleading because it suggests that a perfectly plausible theory of Armenian-Urartian connection is nothing but a national myth, which is untrue.

- Inappropriate because it does not concern URARTIANS!! It concerns modern disputes (nationalism of modern day people), while Urartu is an ancient civilization, not a modern one. The article about Urartu should exclusively be about Urartu NOT modern nationalism. It might be informative to describe various theories concerning the Urartian culture and ethnicity (including the Armenian theory). But discussing modern disputes is entirely inappropriate. No one writes about Dutch nationalism when describing Batavians even though they used them in Nazi propaganda quite extensively, or Azeri nationalism when describing Caucasian Albanians. Or to illustrate the absurdity even further no one mentions Chinese nationalism when describing Football.

- Offensive because of remarks like “compensate for modern miseries”. And please don’t give me the weakest argument of all “I am simply quoting someone ells”. The section is extremely suggestive and needs to be rephrased to say the least, or better yet moved to “Armenian Nationalism” article altogether. Redirecting people to Armenian Nationalism article for an elaborate discussion would be acceptable, but the way it is now a very suggestive ‘analysis’ is extremely unnecessary. The entire “In Armenian Nationalism” section only demonstrates the Turkish nationalists attempts at disconnecting Armenian presence from Anatolia. Maybe it should be moved to “Turkish Nationalism” as well. -Dr.Greenthumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.241.30 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've talked about this before, see my posts in the '"nationalism" section' of this talk page (and see more examples of Dbachmann's offensiveness). Meowy 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Kurdistan?

"The kingdom rose to power in the mid 9th century BC and was conquered by Media in the early 6th century BC, with its centre near the present town of Van on the banks of Lake Van in Northern Kurdistan." is the quote from the top of the page. Why doesn't it read "Eastern Anatolia" which is a much more accurate description —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.67.59 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It was nothing but propaganda, and it is now gone. Meowy 16:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Arqueology of Urartu.

Hi!

I'm studying history and arqueology in Spain and, last year, I did some researches about Urartian Arqueology, a pretty interesting subject. It could be useful to introduce this category for some reasons;

1. Almost all our knowledge about Urartu comes from arqueology, even the letters in Assirian archives.

2. Urartu is a plece where arqueology improvements in the last years are specially important.

3. Finally the conecction between Urarte and the Greek art in the VIII and VII centuries.

The last hippotesis appeared, first, in Herman and then it develop in some authors like Muscarella or Jatzen. Actually Urartu seems no to play the lead rol arqueologists thought in the 70 and 80 decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.8.142 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)