Talk:Kingdom of Sophene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Armenia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Kingdom of Sophene is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Armenians are also liar and fascists like Turks. Kingdom of Sophene is Zaza. It was a Zazaan Kingdom.Armenians steal our history. They are thieves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.128.104 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Armenian? (ethnic)[edit]

I have never seen anything saying that the kingdom's inhabitants before it was conquered by Armenia were Armenians. The only thing I have seen is some Georgian scholar claiming they were a Nakh people (like their contemporary Ers, etc... related somewhat to Urartians and Hurrians...). But as far as I know nobody really knows for sure because the Supani are mysterious and little is known of them or their language... if there is discussion on this by scholars, please enlighten me of it...--Yalens (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've gotten it...[edit]

So, according to the various sources on the Nakh Peoples page,

According to Georgian scholars I.A. Djavashvili and Giorgi Melikishvili Urartuan state of Supani was occupied by ancient Vainakh tribe Tzov, state of which is called Tsobena in ancient Georgian historiography.[1][2][3] Sophene was part of the kingdom of Urartu in the 8th-7th centuries BC. After unifying the region with his kingdom in the early 8th century BC, king Argishtis I of Urartu resettled many of its inhabitants to his newly built city of Erebuni.

...so its possible it was both I guess. Before it was conquered by Urartu it was Nakh... or was Tsov as opposed to Urartian , if you are one of the people who consider Urartian Nakh, because of similarities (Urartian house - biani (-> Armenian city Van?); Ersh- buni, Chechen- bun; etc.). Then the Tsov were moved to what is now the Republic of Armenia ("Around Eribuni"; where other notable Nakh peoples were noted later to live, like the Ers and the Dzurdzuks to their south before they migrated north), so the region was left less populated when the Armenians took over Urartu (or otherwise overthrew their foreign lords as Armenians claim?) and was one of the first places to complete Armenianization. What do you people think? --Yalens (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Tsov[edit]

Okay, first of all, I have a real problem with Aram-van deleting sources that refute his/her views [[1]]. Second of all, that Sophene was even Armenian AT ALL originally is disputable. At the very least there should be some discussion about this before he goes on a deleting spree, as I am the only person who has ever used this talk page. I'm pretty sure we could come to an understanding...--Yalens (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sophene was Armenian and it isn't disputable. Second, how could they have spoken Tsov, if it is a North-Central Caucasian language. Only Georgian scholars say, that the Tsov language was spoken in Sophene. It isn't disputable, that Sophene is Armenia, no historian wrote, that Sophene wasn't Armenian, by Romans it was called Fourth Armenia. The historians mention, that Tigranes the Great reunited the region. Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been bold and removed it entirely. Firstly, the article is about the Kingdom of Sophene. Whatever the origins of the kingdom's population, it is laughable to suggest there was an Urartian-period language in use in this much later time period - so mentioning "Tsov" in the infobox is invalid. However, I question that Armenian was the majority language. The removed text "According to Georgian scholars I.A Djavashvili and Giorgi Melikishvili Urartuan state of Supani was occupied by ancient Vainakh tribe Tzov, state of which is called Tsobena in ancient Georgian historiography. Sophene was part of the kingdom of Urartu in the 8th-7th centuries BC. After unifying the region with his kingdom in the early 8th century BC, king Argishtis I of Urartu resettled many of its inhabitants to his newly built city of Erebuni" was downright bizarre. The titles of the cited "sources" indicate books about Javakheti, about Chechnia and Ingushetia in the modern period, and about the populations between Aztrakhan and the Kura river. These are ALL books dealing with regions and time periods that are completely different from the subject of this article! The text is full of dubious content and non-standard spelling, for example "Vainakh" is presumably "Vannic" - and I see no mention of "Tsov" under that entry! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kay, there's a lot to explain, so this will be a little on the long side. Please read it though.
Okay, to Aram: Dealing with Sophene's ethnicity, that it was mainly or even exclusively Armenian in the time of the Romans is not disputable. North-Central Caucasian language is an obselete term to refer to Nakh languages, mainly because it has been proven they are part of the "Northeast Caucasian" language family. But Northeast Caucasian is also now a misnomer, because the term has been expanded (for quite awhile now, many decades) to include Hurro-Urartian as a branch. It is widely held among many circles that virtually all of Armenia was originally inhabited by Caucasian language speaking peoples (just as Azerbaijan was before its Turkification)- Kartvelian speakers in some areas, "Alarodian" (i.e. Urartian-Nakh-Dagestani-Hurrian) in others. Of course, this is highly unpopular among Armenians themselves, who tend to prefer the version that the Armenian language was spoken in its modern homeland since the beginning of time (and thus support the theory of Armenian origins of ALL Indo-European languages, going against the mainstream belief that the Urheimat is in Eastern Ukraine). According to the Caucasian-origin theory of Armenia, the native languages of the region are Urartian and its relatives, which during ancient times included a handful of Nakh languages (which still contribute somewhat to placenames in Armenia). The speakers of Armenian mingled with these Urartians and Nakh to produce the modern Armenians- and as a result Armenian has a notable substratum (which you can even read about by visiting its page on wiki!), including even Van (from Urartian biani or otherwise Nakh buni). Armenian genetics also shows that Indo-European peoples are not the only source of Armenian ancestry. For example, you can see here [[2]] how in the study it turned out that Armenians had genetics highly irregular for their language family; and R1a and R1b, the two proposed Indo-European markers, is only at 6% and 19% respectively...). But now I am off-topic. I don't dispute that Sophene was Armenian: it wasn't any less Armenian than Yerevan is (and no less Armenian than London is English). It's just that there is the theory that the Tsov was spoken there before Armenian (and Tsov possibly replaced something before it...). --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
(to scribble): Okay, maybe you're right that Tsov was probably extinct there by 300 BCE... On those grounds it is justified to remove it. On book topics, I have never heard of a single book that deals SOLELY with Sophene. If Caucasian peoples inhabited Sophene originally, then it is still related with their history as a whole. Also, you are incorrect in your spelling assertions. Vainakh is indeed incorrect, but it is being confused with "Nakh" (Vainakh, or Dzurdzuk, is simply a subgroup of Nakh, and the only major living branch, so they are used interchangeably often), not "Vannic".
(to both) First, I'd concede scribbles' point that it was definitely extinct by 300 BCE, so referencing it here... I think that the controversy between Armenian scholars on one hand and Georgian and other Caucasians on the other should be mentioned, presenting the two sides equally, the Armenian view (saying that the Armenian language is the oldest language in the region, and that Urartians and others were merely ruling over them, if I am missing something from the Armenian viewpoint add it) and the Caucasian view (saying that Indo-Europeans as a whole are not native to the South Caucasus, and migrated there, both assimilating and replacing various Caucasian and other indigenous groups- various "Alarodian" in Sophene groups as well as Kartvelians, Caucasian Albanians, Caspians and Hattic in ). Maybe we should put it on Sophene instead? --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think (hope) that the field of Urartian studies has progressed beyond "controversy between Armenian scholars on one hand and Georgian and other Caucasians on the other". And even the most extremist Armenian source would never claim the Urartians spoke Armenian! The off-topic titles of those sources did suggest to me propaganda produced by Georgia to "big itself up" by making ethnic or cultural claims to lands that it never had (since it has an inferiority complex about its historically bigger, older, and more culturally important neighbour Armenia). Even if those sources did contain genuine research, if the only people who have made these non-mainstream claims about the ethnic origin and language of Sophene are some minor Georgian historians writing in books that seem to be about completely different subjects, then I still don't see a place for their claims. But it is off-topic material for a Kingdom of Sophene article anyway. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Georgia isn't trying to claim anything against Armenia (or Kurdistan) with regards to Sophene. Nobody has said that there were Kartvelians in Sophene (Kartvelians in and around Ardahan and Kars, yes, but not SOPHENE). Only Hurrians and Nakh (with the two categories overlapping either). And this isn't Chechenia or Ingushetia making claims either, no Chechen or Ingush even dreams of taking Sophene. The info is not propaganda of any sort. And, no I don't think it has- I have met plenty of Armenians (some of them on Wikipedia) who still claim that Urartu's populace spoke Armenian and that the Urartians were only rulers- despite that the linguistic analysis says that the Hurro-Urartian and Nakh words in Armenian form the substratum, not the superstratum. The claim, anyhow, is that there was the Nakh people- the Tsov- inhabiting Sophene and giving it its name before the Armenians conquered them (and the rest of Urartu...)... It's that simple, no geopolitical motives at all. We could at least put this on Sophene's page, as part of Sophene's history as a whole, don't you think? And it belongs on this page too, because it is integral to the section titled "Origins".--Yalens (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Armenians on Wikipedia aren't "Armenian sources"! :) If these claims aren't irredentist (cultural irredentisim rather than territorial), why are their sources books with titles that seem to have nothing to do with Sophene but everything to do with the current international concerns of Georgia? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all, irridentist is not a reason to exclude information. Second of all, you are doing some heavy speculation- for example, they could be in there simply because Georgians and others like to learn about surrounding regions in general, as histories of neighboring regions are often intertwined? Not to mention that books about modern Nakh peoples often mention the historical Nakh peoples and their legacy? It's not so unrelated. In any case, I hold to my point that on THIS page, discussion of Sophene's origins is quite on-topic with regards to the fact that there is a such-titled section (and I did not make the section originally, at least I don't think I did).--Yalens (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
As well as still standing by my earlier objections. I say it is not on-topic. Origins of a kingdom content does not generally contain minority-viewpoint claims about population ethnicity from a period many hundreds (over a thousand, since it is pre-Urartu?) of years before that kingdom's existence, especially where it has no relevance to that kingdon's existence. Origins is really meant to contain information about the entity's immediate political. military, dynastic origins, etc. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, before the Tsov info was added, the origins included info on Urartu's hold on the area- going at least 4 centuries back. Thus the argument that origins are "immediate" political and so on origins is empty. And labeling so-and-so a "minority" viewpoint in a not-so-well studied topic matter on a lesser-known part of the world is highly subjective. I'd also like to note that I have never seen any sources explicitly refuting the work done by Melikishvilli and the rest. And finally, no, if you read the text in question, the thing dates back to the 700s or 800s BCE, so that is not thousands of years before the Kingdom... I see no just reason for excluding the info (it does not have to go HERE, we could put it on Sophene in general, but then again there is the section here...).--Yalens (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe nobody has refuted it because the claim seems so suspicious that, as well as dealing with something very obscure, historians either don't know about it or don't feel a need to bother refuting it. If it smells of you-know-what, its my experince that it generally is you-know-what. On what archaeological basis is this unusually precise and confident Nakh origin theory built upon? There is no 2800-year-old "ancient Georgian historiography" (or even a 1800-year-old one). Where does this "Supani" name come from? What source is claiming that it is Sophene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribblescribblescribble (talkcontribs) 03:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody ever said the theory was god-given or unfallible. However, it is a theory about the matter and deserves mention. The Georgian chronicles, like many historical chronicles, reference events long before their compilation, occasionally using sources no longer available. And yes, they are referring to Sophene. Once again, not a single one of your arguments is passable as a reason for excluding the info. --Yalens (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IP and "Ararat"[edit]

If Ararat and Urartu are to be considered identical, that there was a state (not just a mountain) named Ararat and that it was synonymous with Urartu, we must have citation of this.--Yalens (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: a source about Urartu, from a perspective of Urartian studies, rather than Bible studies by Westerners who probably know little about Urartu...--Yalens (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I see why you added it in reference to the source; however, Ararat refers only to the mountain in the ENGLISH language, not in Hebrew. Adding the name for Urartu in various other languages, be they Hebrew, Persian or whatever, unless the name is somehow significant for some other reason besides existing, is only going to make the article confusing. For now, I have left it, with some edit.--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If I may chime in, in Armenian, the Kingdom of Ararat is often used when speaking about what English speakers call Urartu.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
That's actually quite interesting, Moosh. Nonetheless, I still think that we should only refer to Urartu by Urartu as that is its English name, and this is English wikipedia, mainly to avoid confusion... I also don't really understand why the IP makes such a big issue over it, there's plenty of articles they could constructively contribute to.....--Yalens (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Although the IP is apparently unable to understand the need to use the talk page, I am obliged to post here: Bible Encyclopediae are not the sources we use for wiki. Period. (not to mention that, once again, this name shenanigans will cause serious confusion to readers, who are only familiar with Ararat as a name of a mountain, and Urartu as the English name for the kingdom...)--Yalens (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Джавахишвили И. А. Введение в историю грузинского народа. кн.1, Тбилиси, 1950, page.47-49
    • ^ Чечня и Ингушетия В ХVIII- начале XIX века. Page 52 ISBN 5-94587-072-3 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN.
    • ^ Гаджиева В. Г. Сочинение И. Гербера Описание стран и народов между Астраханью и рекою Курой находящихся, М, 1979, page.55.