Talk:Shupria

this is just a region or province of Urartu mentioned a couple of times in Assyrian sources. Should redirect to Urartu. --dab (𒁳) 15:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "Proto-Armenian" mean to you?

Since this was challenged, I tried to research what the sources mean by the term "Proto-Armenian" and got different answers. Some seem to use it in the sense of all the various groups, speaking different languages, who contributed to the ethnogenesis of the later Armenian people. There is also a stricter linguistic sense of "Proto-Armenian" that refers only to the one language out of which was formed the core of the Armenian language. I found a source stating that according to Diakonoff's view, the Armenians are an amalgam of Hurrians (including Urarteans), Luvians, and Mushki groups, but it is the last of these (the Mushki) who contributed the language that became Armenian. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This means that "proto-Armenian" should be clarified when applying the term to this particular group of people. Any sources referring to Shupria as "proto-Armenians"?--Kober^Talk 19:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a certain anon, banned billions of times under numerous accounts, persistently pushing a non-scientific ultrationalist POV regarding history of southeastern Anatolia. According to his POV all ancient tribes, peoples, civilisations, dynasties were Armenians (i.e. Hayiq)! for which there is not a single academic source. That's all. Roboskiye (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have found abundant sources by the scholars on the subject of what Shupria was, simply by searching for books on "Shupria". I haven't found any yet saying anything different than that it was part of "Arme-Shupria" (various spellings) and was a Hurrian-speaking group that formed a major component of the Armenian ethnogenesis. Does anyone have a source saying that Shupria means something else, and if so, what? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Shupra was a Hurrian-speaking territory which was invaded by the proto-Armenians and then became Arme. But the current version of this article implies that Shupria was aboriginally proto-Armenian, as early as in the 13th century BC. Claiming that Shattuara of Mitanni was a proto-Armenian ruler is also nonsense. Please also note the "Armenian Highlands" is a geographic term sometimes retrospectively applied to the Anatolian region and does not necessarily mean that all the groups within this area were "proto-Armenians". --Kober^Talk 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, but there does seem to be general agreement in everything I can find, that the Arme-Shubrians integrated or intermarried with the proto-Armenian, Indo-European (Mushki) invaders and that they are thus regarded as ancestral to the later Armenians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Using a ref from 1907 sounds interesting to me! Roboskiye (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

5 years later is as good a time as any to chime in. By definition, proto-Armenian, in terms of identity, means "the pieces that were not yet put together to become Armenian," referring to all of the groups of peoples who have contributed to the creation of a unified "Armenian" identity. If a group of people invaded the lands and inter-married with the locals, and the resulting ethnic group became known as "Armenian," then both are proto-Armenians, even if one group's language prevailed. For example:

"Shupra was a Hurrian-speaking territory which was invaded by the proto-Armenians and then became Arme. But the current version of this article implies that Shupria was aboriginally proto-Armenian, ..."

If this scenario actually happened, then both the "proto-Armenians" and the "aboriginals" are proto-Armenians. Let's apply this idea to Mexicans as an example. Both native Americans (i.e.: Mayans) and European Spaniards are "proto-Mexicans," because the two groups merged into one ethnic identity. This is what "proto-Armenian" means to me, if we're talking about a distinct people. Linguistically, it's the non-attested Armenian language. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected

The IPs from 75. are socks of the banned user Ararat arev and can be removed with impunity. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A Lack of Evidence

This article seems to be plagued with claims that cite no evidence. Just going down the article from top to bottom, there is no source cited whatsoever that shows "Armani-Subartu" was attested in Akkadian sources from the 3rd millennium B.C. Additionally, there is no source cited demonstrating that it was Hurrian speaking. The term Proto-Armenian is also misleading since it seems to imply that Shupria was inhabited by speakers of the theoretical proto-armenian language for which there is no evidence cited. If proto-armenian is interpreted to mean that the people of Shupria contributed to the ethnogenesis of Armenians then that is more probable, but this should be stated explicitly and backed by a source. This seems to be already done later on so the use of proto-armenian in the first paragraph should be removed. Going further down, again there is no source cited for the attestation of Subartu in 3rd millenium B.C. Also, I don't understand the rationale behind hyphenating Armani and Subartu and treating them as a single entity, because although some of the sources supposedly show historians have related them before (I haven't had a chance to check those sources), I don't believe they establish them as a single entity. The use of "kingdom of Ararat" to refer to Urartu is also fairly questionable since although following trends in the translation of non-semitic names into Akkadian shows that "ar" becomes "ur" in Akkadian (for which i dont have a source right now), the usage of "kingdom of Ararat" seems to imply a relationship with the biblical "ararat" which I believe was not even attested until well after the fall of Urartu. In order to establish a relationship between urartu and biblical ararat sources must be cited. A citation would be nice for the last sentence too even though i'm pretty sure you can find a source if you follow the wiki link to the esarhaddon article. This article needs to pretty much be rewritten with only claims that are backed by evidence.24.17.216.223 (talk) 19:25

After reading the subartu article I realized this article should just be deleted since everything in this article that is supported by existing evidenced is already expressed and cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subartu 24.17.216.223 (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What does the place name have to do with the Armenian language not being Hurrian?

The second part of this sentence (after the second comma) makes no sense to me: "Some scholars have linked the district in the area called Arme or Armani, to the name Armenia, although the Hurrian language was a language isolate, whereas the far later appearing Armenian language is a Indo-European language."

To me, it makes as much sense as: "Some scholars have linked the word 'kanata' meaning village or settlement, to the name Canada, although the Iroquoian language was a language isolate, whereas the far later appearing English language is a Indo-European language."

What's the point? Perhaps "Armenia" is not an Indo-European name in origin. Mexico isn't an Indo-European name either, and yet the majority speaks an Indo-European language called "Spanish." Egypt is an Indo-European name, used by the Copts who speak Afro-Asiatic. Even "Hay" or "Hayastan" themselves are probably not even Indo-European in origin, and yet Armenians, who speak an Indo-European language, use that word to describe themselves. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)