Talk:Prehistory of the Armenians

This article makes me uncomfortable

I have several problems with this article. (1) It makes the surprising claim that Armenians have an ancient connection to the southern Balkans, which I have not seen in any of the history books on Ancient Greece which I have read. This claim is even more surprising because if this people did migrate from the Balkans in any strength, they would have needed to make their way through a number of unfriendly post-Hittite kingdoms to their historic locations in eastern Turkey, northern Syria, & the southern Caucasus. (2) There is very little reliance on secondary sources, which would help show this is theory held by many -- or some -- experts; I almost missed seeing the two citations to secondary sources, which are buried under numerous citations of primary sources. A healthy presence of secondary sources would serve to show the surprised reader that this not original research, but simply an unfamiliar hypothesis. (3) I'm suspicious about this article because of language which implies this is one person's interpretation, rather than an unfortunately-worded presentation of an unfamiliar hypothesis. For example, note sentences such as "No other nation besides the Teutonic people and the Armenians have such a god (scholars erroneously have derived the Armenian god from a secondary Persian god of Tishtrya)" or "The Trojan War and the destruction of Troy is a historical fact". This language strongly implies one person's opinion -- who may be completely unqualified on this topic.

In short, either the claims of this article need to be confirmed as opinions held by either experts or in common belief of some group, or drastically rewritten to reflect them. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. I believe it can be simplified to include only critical information by removing personal research material and making the article more neutral. There is a predominant theory among historians on Armenian origins (that of the Phrygian/Mushki migration eastward to Urartu), but again, this is only a theory. Maybe we can more this article to one named Theories on the Origin of Armenians or Armenian Ethnogenesis theories. Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pushing words...

"The Hays (Proto-Armenians) are mentioned, for the first time, in the Hittite inscriptions as Hayasa... "

Proto-Armenians?! Why is the author so deliberately enforcing certain direction whereas there is no evidence to support it? The Hays and The Armans are totally two unrelated nations!

Imagine ancient times: Roman Empire is extending its territories towards vast lands of East, and at some point, when they arrive at Mesopotamia, they encounter a nation. After that encounter, they learn the name of those lands: GREAT ARMENIAN EMPIRE. And they note this name in their chronicles throughout centuries. After certain time in history, when Emperor Tigran dies, that Great Armenian Empire collapses and leaves its place to Lesser Armenia...

It's all good so far...

-- Did "Great Armenia" exist?

-- Of course it did.

-- More than 2 millenia ago?

-- Yes!

-- And the name "Armenia" is written in all those ancient historic chronicles?

-- Exactly!

-- Then what today's Armenians claim is correct, right? All those lands belong to them?! The culture they claim we - Turks and to some degree, Muslims - "stole" from them, all that accumulation of folk-lore and what not?!

-- You see, there lies the problem: The nation as we know as "armenians", aren't THE *REAL* Armenians. Throughout centuries they *never* called themselves as such - they call themselves "Hayes", and the name we know as "Armenia" is "Hayastan" in their language. Now imagine: Roman legion arrives, and their delegation asks the natives their names and the name of their lands. And as an answer, Romans are told: "We are Armenians - Armens, Armans", not "Its Hayastan and we are Hayes". The original nation who lived in those territories are long lost Turkish tribe of Arman people, totally different from today's so called "Armenians". The word "Armenia" passes in all related Latin sources and that word has no Latin roots - its a SPECIAL noun, not general. And for that reason, among many of course, Armenians meeting a stranger ask: "Hayes, Turkes?" ("Are you a Hayes, or a Turk?"). Great Armenia existed in ancient times, and then Lesser Armenia, that's a fact; but that culture had nothing to do with today's "Armenians", yet they tirelessly and shamelessly use the name as their own and claim the legacy not belonging to them; not belonging even in the least.

If you don't believe this argument, ask yourself this: If Armenians were so old a nation, where are their numbers now?! Why they still are few million only, after millenia?! We know Ottomans arrived - 400 families in numbers - to Anatolia, and when? 12th century - and we know how they thrived. So, where did millenia-old Armenians "go"?! And please don't get me started by inventing brand new concept of "armenian holocaust"! Just some food for a thought there... Bonne appetite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehriyari (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum and you're pushing a garbage bias that even hack scholars don't advocate. I've seen four year olds come up with more convincing arguments. Preservedmoose (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"them?! The culture they claim we - Turks and to some degree, Muslims - "stole" from them, all that accumulation of folk-lore and what not?!" "We" "Turks". Should we talk about your other comments on the Armenian Genocide or? We can just focus on your comment I just quoted. Never mind just stop fantasizing and trying to abduct the page and showcase your very honest opinions on the matter. Good Day buddy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses3210 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC) 

Shehriyari, you do know that we have inscriptions by ancient Armenians who talk about the Armenian nation using text that modern Armenian can read with a 30-minute refresher on Classical Armenian? Ever heard of the "Armenian bird mosaic" made between the 400s-500s (i.e., before the earliest ever record of the word "Turk")? It reads:

"For the Memory and Redemption of all the Armenians whose names God knows."

– Armenian Bird Mosaic, 400s-500s

The word used to refer to "Armenians" in the mosaic is ՀԱՅՈՑ (Hayots), written 100% exactly like that, which is 100% exactly what Armenians call themselves today, and have called themselves in every inscription found between that time and today (except some cases during Cilician Armenia when they natively adopted foreign name "Armenia"). Spend 1 day learning to read modern Armenian and you'll be able to read it, too.

Also, many nations have different names. Hungary <-> Majaristan. Georgians call Armenians "Somkheti." We call them "Vrastan" but we used to call the "Gurjistan" and "Virq" before that. They call themselves "Kartvelebi." Also, if we weren't "Armenians," why did Medieval Turks call us "Ermeni" (and still do to this day)? Heck, even Hamshenis are called "Ermeni." Why did Iranians call us "Armani"? Why have the Greeks always called us "Armenios"? Lastly, why was the country called "Armenia" translated as "Urartu" in inscriptions as long as the Babylonian language was used well after the use of the word Armenia had been widespread?

It seems to me like you're the one pushing random biased research corrupt by a personal agenda. — [ kentronhayastan ] 16:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

nonsense etymologies

English ire is a loanword from Latin, as is mass in both of its senses. This makes me think a good proportion of the other etymologies presented are bullshit as well. (On the other hand, door and un- have good Indo-European pedigree and are probably correct comparisons.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tread carefully

An IP editor appears to have munged vast amounts of this article about two years ago, including flatly changing cited statements to something else altogether while retaining the citations. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Significantly Edited This Article Because it Was Trash

This article was absolute garbage for a number of reasons. We know that Armenians as a distinct people by the 6th century BCE, so why mention the Paeonians of the 2nd century BCE? And why was this mentioned in a section called “Mitanni and Hayasa” when neither peoples/states were mentioned in the section? According to this article the Armenian endonym “Hye” comes from Greek, which is confusingly equated with “creatures” and stated it likely derived from “pater,” which I have never seen mentioned anywhere but here. More popular theories are that Hye comes from Proto-Indo European “poti” (lord) or a misapplied version of Hattian/Hittite. Most scholars actually do not reject the Hayasa theory, and, while inconclusive, there is some compelling evidence that Hayasa and Armenia are related. This rejects the apparently Syrian Armi/Armanum as having been Armenian, but didn't mention the Armi/Arme/Armani of Subartu/Shupria, which was located just southwest of Lake Van. This article said nothing about the Nairi, even though that is the name of a section.

I significantly edited this article and reworked it to make it more factual. I still think it should be deleted. Prehistoric Armenia is a much better article.

Preservedmoose (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Merger or Renaming

We have Prehistoric Armenia, which this article can be merged into. It makes no sense to have an article called "Prehistory of the Armenians" and "Prehistoric Armenia." I know one refers to the people and the other refers to the geopolitical entity, so if we want to preserve that distinction, how about renaming the article to "Origin of the …" format like others? (I'm proposing Origin of the Armenians. Also, we might want to look into Name of Armenia as well, as I'm seeing a lot of repeated information between the aforementioned articles. — [ kentronhayastan ] 16:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There's also Ancient Armenia as well.--Preservedmoose (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll take it upon myself to rewrite/repurpose this article. I think "Origin of the Armenians" can be the "base"/go-to article that is linked to every time it becomes relevant to get into details of how Armenia/Armenians originated. I think the reason why there is so much repeated information about the topic is that there isn't a dedicated article for it. All of that repetition can be replaced with "see also" or "further information" or "main article" links. Besides, it's a topic of high interest and has been researched quite a lot in many fields (i.e., linguistics, genetics, historiography). Ancient Armenia, on the other hand, I think can be left as is, as it's about the history of Armenia post-prehistory, i.e., antiquity, the time between prehistory and the Middle Ages (the times since the first appearance of "Armenia" during the reigns of the Orontids, Artaxiads, Arsacids until the partition of Armenia); it serves more as an introductory/summary article for the more detailed articles about the time period. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)