Talk:Urartu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

we do indeed need more information about Urartian archaeology. Perhaps you can point us to some good literature summarizing the current status of the field? --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Much of the literature on Urartu that deals with the civilisation as a whole is getting a bit long in the tooth, and are mostly based on excavations in Soviet Armenia and old excavations during the Ottoman Empire. It's my feeling that a lot of the recent literature is mostly monographs or reports resulting from excavations done in Turkey, but these sites are considered in isolation, without connecting the individual excavated site into the wider Urartian state. And there is the problem of lack of trust in Turkish sources. For example, Oktay Belli, a noted Turkish excavator of Urartian sites, produced a quite disgraceful deception when he described a medieval Armenian cemetery site in Edremit as an "Urartian stone-working site" and actually faked his plan of the site by altering the positions of worked stones in the alleged stone-working area so that they were not all arranged north-south (the stones are actually the in-situ bases of vanished khatchkars). Meowy 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeremiah and Urartu

"Furthermore, according to the Old Testament, as late as 593 BC, prophet Jeremiah called on the kingdom of Ararat and its Median allies to conquer Babylon (Jeremiah 51:27), suggesting that at the time Urartu was still considered powerful enough to pose a threat to the Babylonian Empire."

Without a relevant citation, this is not sufficient evidence that Urartu was capable of what the article suggests. It seems unlikely that a Hebrew prophet in early sixth century BC Palestine had any reliable knowledge of the current military capabilties of a nation that bordered the north of his known world. An alternative, and IMHO more plausible, interpretation of the passage is that Jeremiah knew that Ararat/Uratu had been a power to the far north, and therefore, in invoking Babylon's conquest, included it in a list of powers that he knew to the north and west of Mesopotamia. To read into this some latent military potential possessed by Uratu (of which Jeremiah had no first-hand knowledge, and probably only possessed a traditional knowledge) seems to stretch the purpose and historical context of the biblical passage. I am happy, as always, to bow before a reputable/scholarly reference.--Iacobus (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph from the article, as it argues from a primary source, without any evaluation from a secondary source. Given the reservations stated above, relying on the biblical citation alone is unsound. Argument would have to proceed from secondary sources, given the No Original Research rule.Iacobus (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In Armenian and Turkish nationalism

The reason why its indicated in nationalism in both of these states is that, both states use history for solving some current problems. To proove that some lands belong to one or another. That there indicated Armenia and Turkey doesnt mean that Urartuans were ancestors of one of these.. Have peace and get rid of cheap nationalism... Nakh 12:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the article of Urartu. You are saying "there is such a thing as Turkish nationalism". This is certainly correct, but you want to discuss that at Turkish nationalism. The entire reason this article mentions nationalism at all is that the Armenian national mysticists are obsessed with Urartu and wouldn't give Wikipedia any peace before the article made reference to Armenia. Rather than allowing pseudo-historical bullshit into the article, we took the course of mentioning the nationalists themselves. This must be done in all brevity, as this is clearly an article about the Iron Age, and the childish antiquity frenzy most people from the region seem to suffer from today is not really relevant to the topic. --dab (𒁳) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, preach it brother! That sort of rubbish clogs up way too many Wikipedia discussion pages.Iacobus (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But if we are going to mention it, can we at least do it with at least the pretension of adhering to WP:POV? How often does one come across such ridiculously POV statements as the following: "Armenian chauvinists must explain why Urartian epigraphy is in the non-Indo-European Urartian language."? That line is not placed in quotations, since it is clearly the words of another author, and I cannot imagine reading another article where it actually demands that one side must explain themselves for their actions. And Dab, how much more longer are you going to bandy about the "Armenian national mysticists" line? It's getting quite nauseating after hearing it for all these years now. And all this pontificating is highly unnecessary; even if all the evidence indicates that Armenia and Urartu are two entirely separate entities, scholars, including historians such as Diakonov, have never ruled out a linguistic, cultural and ethnic connection between the two, however slight. No book written by a respected scholar has ever failed to mention them in connection to Armenia, even if they do conclude that Armenia was not the same as Urartu. Such illustrious and important ancient and medieval Armenian families as the Artsrunis, the Bagratunis and the Rshtunis are considered to have survived the collapse of Urartu since their "uni" suffix was Urartian in origin. Other examples can be given. Please discuss future edits instead of trying to pigeonhole this or that POV into this article. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem here, Dab is presenting a quotation as part of the text, without citation. There is obviously two problem doing that. First, a secondary source by itself is the point of view of an author. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, by it's tone and synthesis of information, a secondary source can not be a tertiary source by simply failing to present it as a citation. The second problem is that the sentence is the intellectual property of the author and publisher, the version which Dab is reverting to, the citation is made as part of the text of the article. In both cases Dab version fail to mention the author of that position. Not surprising that the tone is pushed toward being a POV, as it never was meant to be a tertiary source to be sounding as a neutral language. Ionidasz (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the argument of being both newcomers even if presented as a supposition does not make sense. Either case, comparing the map of the Phrygian Kingdom [3] and Urartu [4] have them both in present day Turkey. Ionidasz (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Given there are very documented evidences that Armenians were very influenced by both, if any mixture there was, it would be just between those two nations and overlapping the West of one and East of the other. Tagging something which has some truth as simple nationalism, without presenting what makes actually sense and documented as simple scholarship is plain stupid. Ionidasz (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Marshal there is only 2 edits on 4th, and three different edits on 3rd of June. I see no problem there. you always invite me to join, so why dont you join the discussion concerning navigation template and Armenian natism section. It does makes sense that if I find 20 men to edit war, than I can write that Urartuans are ancestors of Scott's. You don't show any evidence to prove your claims. Iron age is much better navigation template for this page than Armenian History. Armenisation of Urartu is really target of Armenian Natists so why do you remove thiese topics and templates? Nakh 06:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But are you meaning to say that absolutely no connection exists between the two? I dislike the manner in which everyone is railing against "Armenian nationalists" when nobody here is proposing that the Urartu = Armenia. No credible scholar, especially one who believes that the Armenians migrated to the Armenian Plateau ca. 1200 B.C., has tried to disassociate the two. Almost all of them agree that the Armenians were, at the very least, the cultural inheritors of Urartu, and that some remnants of Urartian society was able to adapt and assimilate into the Armenian milieu (like the noble Armenian families I mentioned above). That by itself ensures the History of Armenia template a position on the article.

Regarding the "nationalism" section. Unfortunately, the authors cited to support the work are not very well read up. It should be noted that until the 1980s, all scholars, whether they were Armenian or not, agreed, with a caveat or two, that the Armenians had migrated to the Plateau. Recent archaeological evidence has now led some to revise their positions but it's astonishing that when the current section was replaced with a far more neutral one many months ago, it was immediately reverted. I believe that that section is a far better alternative to the current one and I have reproduced it, , with some minor revisions and corrections, below:

Urartu has come to play a role in 19th to 20th century Armenian nationalism. Up until the late 1980s, all scholars, Armenian and non-Armenian alike, agreed with the classical theory of the origins of the Armenian people. However, recent archaeological findings in Armenia in the 1980s and linguistics studies such as the hypothesis posited by scholars Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, have led some to the belief that Armenians were indigenous to Anatolia and the Armenian Plateau. Some scholars have attempted to explain this by arguing that Armenians are motivated by “the desire to prove Armenian priority relative to the Turks, who cannot claim presence in Anatolia prior to the Seljuk conquests of the 11th century.” According to Anne E. Redgate, “Identification with the ‘distant glories of Urartu’ can be used to reassert Armenian ‘indigeneity’ and ‘compensate for modern miseries.’”

Notes

---

And so on. I think this would actually work better than the insulting section that was up just one day ago. Rewordings are more than welcome.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I saw no objection, and as the former (insulting) version is not acceptable, I made the replacement.

Nakh is seriously asked not to carry on with edit warring. Sardur (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is an insult, than it is from Armenian Nationalists which invented many theories for Armenian history without any education in history or linguistics. (check on youtube: Armenians: First inhabitans in Britain there are many same bigotries. You can read some Soren Ayvazyan's articles. These people and their articles are the most insulting things. Nakh 10:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So what, this is your revenge for these "most insulting things"? If you're not able to make the difference between WP and youtube or I don't know what, please stop contributing to this article. And remember that this talk page is not to be used as a forum.

On top, this would in any case certainly not justify the insertion of the insulting and unsourced sentence "Armenian chauvinists must explain why Urartian epigraphy is in the non-Indo-European Urartian language" (my emphasis). Sardur (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The main reason we keep the "in nationalism" section around is the fact that this page keeps being trolled by Armenian nationalists. The topic is not really important to the article topic. We can try losing that section altogether, but this will probably result in attempts to insert the nationalist discourse in the "ethnogenesis" section. I don't have a fixed opinion on this.

The purpose here is not to "insult" anybody but to document the fact that Armenian nationalists may harbour sentiments associated with Urartu. This is probably of very little interest to anyone interested in the Iron Age state, but it is very useful for understanding the constant bickering we have to put up with here on talk. --dab (𒁳) 18:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Armenians, or as mentioned by some Wikipedia anti-Armenian Turks, "Armenians nationalists" or "Armenian trolls," in Wikipedia have only stated that Armenians are the cultural successors of Urartians, as is stated by the majority of historians specialized in the field, while anti-Armenian Turks have insisted that there should be a separate section in the article on "Urartu" called "in Armenian Nationalism," to turn the generally unanimous belief, among historians specialized in the field, that Urartu became Armenia, into a "convention among Armenian chauvinists."

The section of "In Armenian Nationalism" is as useless in this article as it is in the "Mount Ararat" article. Its only purpose is to express the views of those who think that linking Urartu and Mount Ararat to Armenia are negative things.

I have nothing against the crescent moon and star, and I am proud of Turks who are proud of their national symbols. I ask them to acknowledge our history with Urartu and Mount Ararat, and respect them as our national symbols, regardless of whether or not they belong to Armenians today. The moon and stars in space surely don't belong to Turkey, yet it is their national symbol. There is no fascism in this, and there is no need to point out the fact that some fascists will use it against their enemies. Same applies to Urartu and Mount Ararat. The act of pointing out this fact is, in itself, fascism. "Armenian nationalists" don't go to the Wikipedia articles on "The Moon" or "Star" and add a section about "Turkish nationalism" and present a negative point of view, calling the Turks that feel represented by, and are proud of, the crescent moon and star as "chauvinists."

Another thing I'd like to mention is "Armenians migrated to Urartu." Armenians didn't exist in the times of Urartu. Urartu was a federative kingdom of many tribes. Tribes speaking a proto-Armenian language probably migrated to Urartu, but NOT "Armenians." Armenians emerged from the ashes of Urartu as a Satrapy called "Armina." Armenia is the completion of the amalgamation of the indigenous tribes into a unified nation -- in these were Scythian settlers, Cimmerian settlers, Biainillians, etc. Please don't say "Armenians" migrated to Urartu, because its anachronous. It's like if I said the "English" migrated to the Island of Britain in the 5th century, when there was no such thing as an "English people" (they were Anglo-Saxon peoples). Saying "Armenians" migrated to Urartu is misleading and inaccurate. Say instead "proto-Armenian speaking peoples."

@Nakh, if Armenians make statements that are backed by an overwhelming majority of scholars in the field, does that make them "Armenian nationalists," or their statements "bigotry"? It seems some of these statements work against your nationalist beliefs, therefore, you negatively refer to them as "nationalists," when in reality, they are simply enriching Wikipedia with facts they have read in books by qualified linguists & historians in the field, and anti-Armenians come along and troll articles that are linked to their history that come into conflict with their nationalist beliefs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected indefinitely. Please discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. When you have agreed and resolved the dispute, please make a listing at requests for unprotection for the page to be downgraded to semiprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if the protection is on m:the Wrong Version. I will be going through the page history carefully and issuing sanctions against anyone who engages in edit-warring. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Now unprotected. Play nice. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And here we are again, with dab inserting without any discussion an unsourced sentence of the same kind as the former problematic sentence :

"There is a conviction among Armenian patriots that the Armenians are the "original inhabitants" of much of the territory of historic Armenia, motivated by the desire to prove Armenian priority relative to the Turks, who cannot claim presence in Anatolia prior to the Seljuk conquests of the 11th century."

What is "Armenian patriots"? Sardur (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And why is this OR there and other referenced information deleted without discussion?

Why is another part deleted too: "A competing theory suggested by Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in 1984 places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland, see Armenian hypothesis, which would entail the presence of Proto-Armenians in the area during the entire lifetime of the Urartian state."? Because it's count to be a blatant lie by the editor or not but he need references? Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not "insert" anything, I restored the content that was lost in your stupid edit war. The Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984) publication remains duly referenced, I don't see how you can claim it has been "removed". There is no need to mention it three times in a row now, is there? Especially as it has received no support whatsoever in the 25 years since it was published.

As for the tedious "patriotism" issue, you are the ones that won't let that die, not me. I have already said I would be willing to drop this forever. An account of Urartu as part of the Armenian national mythology is in Redgate (1995) and the article is summarizing her account. There aren't hundreds of scholarly sources discussing Armenian nationalism to choose from, but you are welcome to provide others. In fact, seeing that Armenian nationalism is the only thing you seem to care about, why don't you build the Armenian nationalism article instead of playing your games with this one. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• You deleted the paragraph of the theory of the origins of Armenia willing for only 1 to be mentioned. This is the deletion of a referenced info. You kept only the language part and you claim you didn't delete any refed info.
• If you call an 3rd party RS a nationalist Armenian point of view, that's your problem, but don't present your POV as a fact and start accusing others in nationalism.
• Another referenced info was deleted as follows from the role in nationalism part: " However, recent archaeological findings in Armenia in the 1980s and linguistics studies such as the hypothesis posited by scholars Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, have led some to the belief that Armenians were indigenous to Anatolia and the Armenian Plateau.< ref > Bournoutian, p. 17.< /ref> < ref >Robert H. Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001, p. 24.< /ref> "

Will you again argue you deleted nothing referenced and that all your contributions to the article are wrongly opposed by "nationalist" edits as you called the "95%" of those? Aregakn (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but if you just keep repeating yourself it isn't going to become any truer. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov published in 1984. Hewsen (2001) may mention them, along with countless other sources, but I don't see why Hewsen (2001) should be cited rather than the original 1984 publication.

That said, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984) have nothing whatsoever to do with Urartu. Please check the article title. Why do you keep trying to discuss Armenians, Armenians and again Armenians? Try Origins of Armenians. If you are unhappy about the presentation of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1984), I suggest we remove any mention of them, as the reference is off topic tangent. None of your references even mention Urartu. Stay on topic please. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see, that you have little knowledge of Urartu yourself. Are you aware of the location of the kingdom? OK, I'll tell that the location is called the Armenian Highlands. And as you seem knowing at least a bit, the subject research is about the Armenian highlands being the very native land for Armenians (proto-Armenians) which makes Urarto not even indirectly, but very directly relevant to Armenians. If you had not seen this relevance, I am sorry for that. Reevaluate your knowledge and jurgement and make no changes before discussing. Aregakn (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now in this context you either explain why the deletions were good for the article, or agree to bring them back. Aregakn (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any explanations ofhis previous edits, as requested, but I see continuation of editing by Dbachmann. Please engage back in the discussion. Aregakn (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigation template 2 ("Iron Age" or "History of Armenia")

Firstly Iron Age is most objective, it doesn't serve anyones nationalistic aims and also no one has doubt that Urartu is Iron Age kingdom. Its easily provable there are many evidences for it, and all the scholars agree on it. While role of Urartu in Armenian history is highly disputed by many scholars, (not agree ones; I.M. Diakonov, S.S. Starostin, John A.C. Greppin, B.B. Piotrovsky, V.A. Schnierelmann, L.B. Alaeva, Lechi Ilyasov, P.L. Kohl in his book "Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology" and many many more.), of course some scholars defended this theory (as S. Ayvazyan, R. Ishkhanyan, M. Kavokjian, A. Movsisyan, L. Shainyan, A. Teryan, K. Sukiasyan -mostly Armenian-) This why I believe it will be unfair if wiki supports one side of yet disputed theory. I replace "Armenian History" template with "Iron Age" Nakh 07:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One more note, template has an impact on not well informed the reader. Since the issue is not solved by scientists, Encyclopedia should remain neutral, not make early conclusions, and not misinform readers. Nakh 08:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nakh Yet "Gauls," who didn't speak French - who were overlapped by "French-speaking peoples" - who were assimilated into the newly formed Franko-Roman civilization, which inherited Gaulish words and culture -- which is a disputed, yet a generally accepted belief among historians in the field, are legitimately part of French history...

But....

"Urartians" who didn't speak Armenian - who were overlapped by "Armenian-speaking peoples" - who were assimilated into the newly formed Armeno-Iranian civilization, which inherited Urartian words and culture -- which is a disputed, yet a generally accepted belief among historians in the field, are NOT legitimately part of Armenian history (according to you).

Tell me why Urartians and Armenians can't be compared to Gauls and Franks, then tell me why Gauls can fit in French history, yet Urartians must absolutely be removed from Armenian history. Removing Urartu from Armenian history only serves the nationalistic aims of anti-Armenians who need Armenians to not be indigenous to their homelands since most anti-Armenians are not indigenous to their homelands. If you are so fond of separating Armenians and Urartians, then, for the same reason, you must be fond of separating the French from the Gauls. I will return this to "Armenian History" and I want you to remove "Gauls" from French history before you remove Urartu from Armenian history. Otherwise, you must have reasons beyond objectively providing accurate information to Wikipedia to change it, reasons such as biased nationalistic aims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparison between Gauls to French and Hurrian to Armenian is nonsense. I dont know the similarities and difference between Franc and Gauls cultures. But at least both of them were speaking Indo-European language. In Armenian situation Hurrians were speaking TOTALLY different language, their socio-politic structure was different and so on. With your pholosophy you can add Byzantum, Alexanders Macedonia, Rome, Caliphate, Tatar and Turkic hordes, Acheamenide and Parthian empires to Armenian history there also passing this region during a period of time, werent they? Connection of French and Gauls is not evidence prooving connection Armenians and Urartuans so please stop adding that bigotry. Nakh 05:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was Indo-European or not has nothing to do with this discussion. Russian and Spanish are Indo-European languages, but they are entirely different languages, and if one invaded the other, it would not be different if one spoke an Altaic language. Gaulish and French are TOTALLY different languages, branched off from a common ancestor some thousands of years ago. The idea that with my philosophy I can add Byzantum, Alexanders Macedonia, Rome, Caliphate, Tatar and Turkic hordes, Acheamenide and Parthian empires to Armenian history is entirely your invention, and isn't an intelligent way of disproving my comparison, and honestly, would fall into the "bigotry" category in my book. On the contrary, with your logic, we cannot include ancient Egypt in the history of modern Egypt simply because they spoke totally different languages, and used different names for their kingdoms (ancient Egyptians didn't call their kingdom "Egypt.") The ancient Azerbaijani language was Indo-European, and today Azerbaijanis speak a Turkic language, which are also different language groups. Why can Azerbaijan claim historical continuity with Atrpatakan, if, according to your logic, historical continuity can only be accepted if the language spoken today is part of the same language group as in ancient times.

(for the sake of clarity, I have put titles for my arguments)

Socio-political aspects

The region known as Urartu became part of Media, and then Persia, with Persian satraps ruling the region. Of course many socio-political aspects of the region changed, but as is mentioned by scholars specialized in the field, many aspect persisted. The socio-political aspects of Greece changed after Ottoman Rule, yet they are still Greeks. The socio-political aspects of Russia changed, yet they are still the successors of the Soviet Union.

Urartu didn't simply vanish into thin air simply because you wish it did. The region known as Urartu became known as Armina or Armenia by the contemporary superpowers, and almost immediately after the fall of Urartu. Still, Babylonians called it "Urashtu (Urartu)" while the new name "Armenia" already existed. The Behistun Inscription CLEARLY equates the two. Armenia is not the DIRECT successor of Urartu, BUT it IS the geopolitical successor, much like France became the geopolitical successor of Gaul. If you don't like this because it destroys your nationalistic, political aims, that's your problem, but I'd like you to check out the Gauls and Franks and see the similarities with Urartu/Armenia before you blatantly make changes in Armenian history.

Language in Urartu & Armenia

I'd also like to add that we have no clear idea of what the common folk in Urartu spoke, nor de have ANY IDEA of what language was spoken in the Armenian state that followed until the times of the creation of the Armenian Alphabet in the 5th century. As we can see, old french and modern French is almost incompatible, and so is old English and modern English, and these languages have existed for only half the amount of years the Armenian state has existed. Who knows what type of language evolution, replacement, etc. occured in the Armenian Highlands from the times of Urartu all the way to the creation of the Armenian Alphabet (a 2,500 year process). If you know linguistics, you should know what 100 years can do to a language, let alone 2,500 years. God know what was spoken at the time of Tigran II the Great. Maybe there were still large pockets of people speaking Urartian. The languages spoken in Ancient Armenia and Urartu are so unclear, it is intellectually dishonest to use "language" as a basis to disassociate the two from each other.

But there is one thing other than language, in ancient times, that link the two more than anything else:

Khorenatsi's history and coincidences with known Urartian history

Although we both agree that Movses Khorenatsi is not a 100% reliable historian (as are all ancient historians such as "Homer," Herodotus, etc), in his history, Armenia is often engaged into wars with Assyria. Now Assyria, as a state, ceased to exist before "Armenia" came into existence. Urartu is the only kingdom in the region that was in conflict with Assyria. If his history is at least slightly based on true events told from generation to generation, the only kingdom he could be talking about is "Urartu." We all know that Khorenatsi mentions the Assyrian queen Semiramis (this story is the reason Urartu was rediscovered). We also know that an Assyrian queen Semiramis existed at a time very close to the rule of Aramu, the first known king of Urartu. And we also know that Ara the Beautiful (the king of Van at the time in Khorenatsi's history) was in conflict with Semiramis, and was a very close relative of Aram/Aramu (either a son, or brother). We all know that ancient historians add mythical elements to great rulers, but this doesn't change the fact that they recorded their existence.

Some historians say the name "Armenia" comes from the name "Aram," meaning "the land of Aram." We do know Aram, Ara, Armen, and Armin are all people names. Urartu's first known king is "Aramu" and one of the first kings of Armenia mentioned in Khorenatsi's book is "Aram" (assuming "Aram" was not the source of the name "Armenia," Khorenatsi, and the contemporary Armenians, STILL recorded the name "Aram" as one of their first kings, when "Aramu," oldest known king of Urartu, was forgotten by everyone else until the 19th century).

The name "Biainili" (native name of Urartu) is widely recognized as the ancestral name of "Van." The first Armenian kingdom in the history of Khorenatsi is the distinct "Kingdom of Van" (Kingdom of Biainili), which was the only kingdom in Khorenatsi's history that fought Assyria (I repeat, Urartu/Biainili was the only kingdom of the region to have fought Assyria), with its capital in Van (Samiramakert or Tosp in Armenian, and Tushp-a in Urartian). Since only the native Urartians called their kingdom "Biainili," and Armenians used that very name (as "Van") to describe a kingdom that coincides with Urartu, wouldn't that make Armenians the only nation that still uses the native name? This would hint that Armenians are the descendants of these natives, or at least in very close contact, and most probably the cultural successors, since if they were outsiders, or invaders, they would have used names such as "Urartu."

There are some other connections with Urartian history and Khorenatsi's history of Armenia, but for the sake of this argument, this is enough to claim: Therefore, Armenia, through Khorenatsi's collection of traditional history, is the only nation that preserved Urartian history, although somewhat distorted, and it is presented as its own continuous history, and this is long before the "Armenian nationalist" movement that occurred in the 19th century, 1,500 years before. Now, I know Khorenatsi is not the most reliable source, but we all recognize that his history is the oral traditional history passed on from generation to generation until it reached him. We all recognize that there are distortions and anachronisms (centuries of distortions). But this is not a reason to completely throw Khoreatsi aside. We don't throw Herodotus aside, do we?

You may come up with "well these are all coincidences and should not be used as solid evidence for the relationship between Armenia and Urartu," but my answer to that is easy: "It is also not a reason to throw it aside as evidence." It's dishonest to not recognize these coincidences and pretend they didn't exist. I don't say Urartians were Armenians, but you cannot deny that Armenians came into existence from within Urartu, and became the geopolitical successors, and there is so much evidence for this, to not see it is to be blinded. Most probably, this blindness is due to your own personal nationalistic aims. Now, before you change "Armenian History" to "Iron Age," please disprove my arguments with some facts other than your invention about "according to your philosophy..." I have used constructive arguments, and therefore, you have no right to impose your version of this article until you disprove them.

Conclusion for your first reply

Finally, 1. comparing Urartu/Armenia to Gauls/French is not evidence of anything. Its purpose is self-explanatory: comparing. It doesn't equate Armenia to Urartu, it does the opposite, it makes a distinction, just as Franks and Gauls were distinct, but it makes them geopolitical relatives, something you cannot deny. It is only bigotry for someone who wants to make it seem as if Urartu and Armenia were on two different planets and are 100% unrelated, but that is, in itself, bigotry. 2. Calling "Urartu" simply an Iron Age state instead of making it part of "History of Armenia" only serves the nationalistic aims of those who want to degrade Armenians for political reasons. Everyone agrees the region called Urartu is now called Armenian Highlands, so completely separating the two is dishonest and mainly due to political reasons. Ancient Egyptians called their country Kemet, and they spoke entirely different languages, had completely different socio-political aspects, had a complete different culture, religion, even their physical appearance was different, yet they are still a part of Egyptian history. Please answer these before changing anything, and if you are incapable, don't impose yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, just for the heck of it, do you believe Caucasian Azerbaijanis are descendants of Caucasian Albanians?

If you know linguistic too, than you must know that average 1000 years can change the language beyond recognition. It’s ok, but you also had to know that these changes are not chaotic and there are some rules that makes it possible to recover its earlier form. (Andersen’s rule for example) Also even there is 5000 years between older and new language they will stay in one language family. A Celtic (IE Lang) won’t become Dravidian if thousand years pass. The only way for it happens is assimilation.

By the way there is no Egypt History template on Ancient Egypt page check it out. Related Azerbaijan and others I really don’t know anything, and don’t care. My object of attention is Urartu. Related your philosophy,

The problem is not modern Armenians and Hurrians difference. Problem is that even Orontides were totally different from Urartuans. In each aspects, language, arts, architecture socio-politics.

“BUT it IS the geopolitical successor,” agree on this (Armenia is also geopolitical successor of Byzantine, Caliphate etc. etc.) Repeat once again, I’m living far away from Armenia and Turkey, ethnically don’t have any connection to both, and don’t care for both Turks and Armenians. If I had to chose one I’d chose Armenians because of my good friend Karen but it’s all separate from this issue.

“I'd also like to add that we have no clear idea of what the common folk in Urartu spoke” and still you want to add it into Armenian History? We are quite sure that rulers were speaking dialect of Hurrian which is a disappeared Iron Age language.

“As we can see, old french and modern French is almost incompatible, and so is old English and modern English, and these languages have existed for only half the amount of years the Armenian state has existed.” But we don’t class old-french as Altaic. Both old-french and modern were indo-european languages from same branch, while Armenian and Hurrian are far away from each other. Not even far relative.

"Who knows what type of language evolution, replacement, etc. occured in the Armenian Highlands from the times of Urartu all the way to the creation of the Armenian Alphabet (a 2,500 year process)." What ever there happened a language with ergative tense wouldn’t become a IE language without assimilation.

“If you know linguistics, you should know what 100 years can do to a language, let alone 2,500 years. God know what was spoken at the time of Tigran II the Great.” It does some systematic changes, “improvements”. Its not chaotic and you can track the rules in which these changes happened. Although we both agree that Movses Khorenatsi is not a 100% reliable historian (as are all ancient historians such as "Homer," Herodotus, etc) Yes we did, that’s all.

“The name "Biainili" (native name of Urartu) is widely recognized as the ancestral na … “ Does it wonder you that some old names survived in Armenian? Armenians replaced Hurrian culture, and of course there must be some loans. Again, Khorenatsi as a medieval historian could read a story that a state was fighting Assyria and come to conclusion that is was Armenia only because its northern than Assyria. It’s a mistake you can widely meet in that period. Tired of answering this personal research.

Making "Urartu" part of "History of Armenia" instead of calling it simply an Iron Age state instead serves the nationalistic aims of those who want to raise Armenians for political reasons. And you have reasons for doing it, unlike us. Nakh 07:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer all of your arguments for now (I will), nor have I read them, but I read your first argument, and already saw a flaw.

"Problem is that even Orontides were totally different from Urartuans. In each aspects, language, arts, architecture socio-politics."

Problem here is that if you know what language the Orontids spoke, you must have some ancient tablet lying around in your room that no one has seen. Orontid (Yervand) is a Medo-Persian name, not Armenian. It entered Armenians through them. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the socio-political aspects of the Orontids were different than the kings of Urartians. With Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turks went through an ENTIRE change of socio-political aspects. Does that mean modern Turks are entirely different than Ottoman Turks? Again, my example of Greeks. When the Ottoman turks conquered them, they went through a change of socio-political aspects, but they remained descendants of Byzantines. But seriously, tell me what language Orontids spoke. Do we have ANY evidence of what the Orontids, or let alone the following major Armenian dynasties, spoke until the creation of the Armenian alphabet? The only clue we have is that "Armenians spoke a language that, to the ears of Herodotus, sounded like Persian" (no doubt, since the Orontids were Medo-Persians). Does that statement prove anything? What if the Arshakunis brought the Armenian language with them and the Orontids were speaking Persian? Does that mean that the Urartians, living in the new Armenian satrapy stop being Urartian all of a sudden? Is it not possible that Urartians themselves abandoned their language for Armenian and were amalgamated in the Armenian world that arose in the region? Again, did the Azaris of Iran stop being an Iranian nation because they began to speak Turkic? In the end, refrain from using "language" as an argument because we have NO IDEA of what the official language of the state was, nor how many times it changed in the millennia that followed the collapse of Urartu.

We don't know what the Urartians spoke, nor do we know what Armenians spoke. From 1200 BC to 500 AD, we have seen Assyrian, Hurrian, Persian & Greek inscriptions in the region, and afterward, we have seen Armenian inscriptions. The only thing we know about the end of Urartu and genesis of Armenia is that Urartu was succeeded by the Satrapy of Armina (which later became an independent region once again, under a Perso-Armenian dynasty), and that's what we should be concentrated on when we say that Urartu is part of Armenian history. The biggest proof that we have that Armenia and Urartu were considered be part of a continuous nation is the Behistun Inscription -- why else would Urashtu (Urartu) be used to describe a nation called "Armenia" in the other languages used in the inscription? Knowing this, the denial of a link between Urartu and Armenia is simply blatant.

I'd also like you to inform you of genetic studies. DNA tests show that Georgians and Armenians are closest relatives. We all agree that Hurrian is part of a larger Caucasian language group. We all agree that Urartian is part of the Hurro-Urartian group. We all agree that the Georgian language is related to many other Caucasian languages. Genetic studies have also proven that nations (as in, a large group of people) have migrated a lot less than we used to think. Would it not be logical that Urartians, a people related to the broader Caucasian peoples, simply went through a language and identity change sometime in their history? It's either that, or Armenians have lived in the region at the same time as Urartians, making them Urartians as well (this is the most widely accepted theory, in which Hayasans would be those "Armenians" living with Urartians (we also agree Urartu was a federative kingdom of many nations) -- which still means they were a minority in Urartu, and simply became the majority in their own country later on, assimilating the minorities, including the earlier ruling dynasties -- Biainilians). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Kentron I must agree with you. I'm also supporter of that theory that genetically Armenians must have big enough contemplate of Hurrian genes. Also Diakonoff notes it that Armenians are amalgam of Armenians Hurrian and Luwians. (See amalgam of Armenians and other) If you will edit page in that way I will be agree with you. But we must moderate some nationalist users which going to a total different way. And lets improve this bloody article instead of trying to impose our versions related nation of Urartuans. Sincerely Nakh 06:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm currently Armenian editor hordes vandalising this page... So sad.. Nakh 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

“BUT it IS the geopolitical successor,”

agree on this (Armenia is also geopolitical successor of Byzantine, Caliphate etc. etc.)

No, Armenia was occupied/conquered by Byzantine, the Caliphate, etc. whereas Urartu wasn't conquered or occupied by Armenians, but rather the Armenian nation emerged as the amalgamation of the native tribes in Urartu. There is no record of the existence of Armenians outside Urartu prior to the emergence of Armenia. Armenians emerged as a nation in the same region as Urartu. Therefore, it is not comparable to Byzantine or the Caliphate. It is more comparable to the earliest history of Japan: Urartians were like the Jomon people of the Armenian plateau, while the tribes that spoke a proto-Armenian language are like the Yayoi. Two different groups of people who set the pavement for the creation of a new nation (Japan & Armenia, respectively).

“I'd also like to add that we have no clear idea of what the common folk in Urartu spoke”and still you want to add it into Armenian History? We are quite sure that rulers were speaking dialect of Hurrian which is a disappeared Iron Age language.

Again, is history strictly based on language? There is not one nation in the world that speaks its prehistoric language. Some have evolved like in the case of Greeks, while some have changed entirely like in the case of the French and Armenians.

“As we can see, old french and modern French is almost incompatible, and so is old English and modern English, and these languages have existed for only half the amount of years the Armenian state has existed.”

But we don’t class old-french as Altaic. Both old-french and modern were indo-european languages from same branch, while Armenian and Hurrian are far away from each other. Not even far relative.

It seems you have not understood my previous argument. Whether the two languages are relatives or not is irrelevant. Gaulish and French are entirely different languages that are derived from the same language thousands of years earlier. Spanish and Russian are Indo-European languages, but they are two entirely different languages at this point. If Spanish people begin speaking Russian, it's not because the language evolved from Spanish to Russian, but that it was replaced, even if both are Indo-European/same language group. I'm not saying Armenian evolved from Hurrian. I'm saying the Urartians stopped speaking their Hurrian language and began to speak an Indo-European language.

"Who knows what type of language evolution, replacement, etc. occured in the Armenian Highlands from the times of Urartu all the way to the creation of the Armenian Alphabet (a 2,500 year process)."

What ever there happened a language with ergative tense wouldn’t become a IE language without assimilation.

Exaclty my point. Urartians were a piece in the puzzle which, when all put together [after the amalgamation, call it assimilation if you wish], became Armenia -- retaining many elements from the first kingdom in the region, Urartu, in the process. For Armenia to be 100% distinct from Urartu, Armenia must have existed separately elsewhere. History shows no trace of anything Armenians outside Urartu (or the region before Urartu's existence). Urartu was a federative kingdom, and Armenians were most probably among the peoples within Urartu. Whether the ancestors of these people migrated some thousands of years ago into the region is irrelevant. If we go this far, we can say all nations are "African invaders." The point is, "Armenia" (the nation) emerged for the first time from the ashes of Urartu, absorbing the previous kingdom, like it has happened many times for almost all civilizations in history. I hope this is clear enough.

“If you know linguistics, you should know what 100 years can do to a language, let alone 2,500 years. God know what was spoken at the time of Tigran II the Great.”

It does some systematic changes, “improvements”. Its not chaotic and you can track the rules in which these changes happened.

Although we both agree that Movses Khorenatsi is not a 100% reliable historian (as are all ancient historians such as "Homer," Herodotus, etc)

Yes we did, that’s all.

You must reformulate this part because it's mixed up...

“The name "Biainili" (native name of Urartu) is widely recognized as the ancestral na … “

Does it wonder you that some old names survived in Armenian? Armenians replaced Hurrian culture, and of course there must be some loans. Again, Khorenatsi as a medieval historian could read a story that a state was fighting Assyria and come to conclusion that is was Armenia only because its northern than Assyria. It’s a mistake you can widely meet in that period.

Tired of answering this personal research.

Your statement returns to the "maybe it's just a coincidence" argument which I already gave my opinion on.

"Personal research…" You pretend to have the authority to decide whether or not Urartu should be simply "Iron Age" or "History of Armenia," and I wonder what research you base this decision on. Are you a professor in the field? Your research is as "personal" as mine is. Most people providing information to Wikipedia are "personal researchers" which is WHY we need to reference our claims. My claims are based on books by professionals. So what if it's my "personal research"? Does it make it less credible?

Making "Urartu" part of "History of Armenia" instead of calling it simply an Iron Age state instead serves the nationalistic aims of those who want to raise Armenians for political reasons. And you have reasons for doing it, unlike us.

Sure, it makes Armenians happier than Azeris and Turks. But it's not because Egypt or France have no "mortal enemy nation" that their ancestors are allowed to be included in their history and not ours. What Armenians try to accomplish with Urartu on Wikipedia is to build the history of their nation using the same standards other nations are using. Apparently, this bothers Turks and Azeris since it proves us right and them wrong on many points (mainly, our nativity claim). For example, the French don't speak Galish anymore, but Gaul is part of the History of France. The Helladic period is part of Greek history, even though the population probably didn't speak an Indo-European language. History of Ancient Egypt is part of History of Egypt, yet they were entirely different, with a different identity, different language of a different language group, different religion, and different physical appearance. There are many other examples like this, but I'm tired of repeating this. My question is, why do all of these cultures manage to be part of the history of their respective successors, but not Urartu in Armenian history, knowing Armenia emerged immediately after the fall of Urartu, in the same region, with a cultural continuity, simply because the language that was probably spoken by the nobility of the region was Hurrian, and 1 millennia later, Armenian (we don't know what was spoken in the region from the fall of Urartu to the creation of the Armenian Alphabet 1 millennia later).—Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 04:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"By the way there is no Egypt History template on Ancient Egypt page check it out."

Check History of Egypt & History of ancient Egypt. I don't know why the template is not on Ancient Egypt, but that doesn't change the fact that in all history books, and the articles I just presented, Ancient Egypt is considered part of a continuous history of Modern Egypt.

I guess the best comparison I can make are the Mestizos of South America. European Spaniards have intermingled with Amerindians during the age of discovery and the result is "Mestizos." Genetically, they are more Amerindian, but they speak Spanish. Does that mean that the Mestizos (the main ethnic group in Mexico) are completely unrelated to the Amerindians because they speak a language today that isn't in the same language group as their ancestors? Armenians are the result of probably Phrygian & Iranian settlers intermingling with the local Urartian peoples who. The DNA of Armenians is the proof that they are very closely related to their neighbors, but their language suggest a language replacement. If we use the same standards used by all other nations for their history, wouldn't that mean Urartu is legitimately part of Armenian history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a step back please and look at this section. How about investing your time in actually improving the article? This article doesn't need a navbox. If people cannot agree on one, it can just do without. Neither the links in the "History of Armenia" nor the links in the "Ancient Mesopotamia" article have any particular relevance to this topic. This is a topic of an Iron Age state, but also the links in the "Iron Age" template aren't terribly relevant here.

Navboxes are for the benefit of the reader, and should be used if there is a group of very relevant, closely related topics. They are not here for cheap pissing contests over who gets to own the article page real estate. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

@dab How about actually ARGUING with me instead of throwing everything out the window? "We can't decide on one so let's just not put anything" or "why don't you invest time on improving the article" are not arguments and do not refute ANYTHING that I have said, but rather ignores them. They are not eligible reasons to please those who would dissociate Urartu from anything Armenian. We will improve the article when all of us agree that there is nothing else to be said. Otherwise, this article will always be a battlefield. The problem with removing these templates is that I firmly believe Urartu has played a major role in Armenian History, and so do most scholars in the field. Including "Ancient Mesopotamia" helps the read find other kingdoms of its time, and "History of Armenia" helps the reader discover the nation that succeeded it. They are perfectly relevant templates and do nothing else than to benefit the reader.

I agree, my discussions are long, but we're providing to an encyclopedia here. If you are too impatient to read, then you're at the wrong place. Let me reformulate one of my arguments. Why is there a template for the "History of France" on an article about a nation that is unrelated to the French directly (Gaul), but served as a piece of their ethnogenesis puzzle, and that existed on the territory of modern day France, and was succeeded by the ancestors of the modern-day French under the Roman Empire, MUCH like Urartu served as a piece of the ethnogenesis puzzle of Armenians, and existed on the territory of the Armenian Highlands, and was succeeded by the ancestors of modern-day Armenians under the Median/Achaemenid Empire? Why is it fair that France may include their history template on the article of a state that is as related to them as much as Urartu is related to Armenians? The only difference between Urartu/Armenia and Gaul/France is that the French don't have Turkish historians distorting history in order to degrade them. Urartu is part of Armenian history exactly like Gaul is part of French history, Britons are part of English history, Ancient Egyptians are part of Modern Egyptian history, Amerindians are part of Mestizos' history, the Helladic period is part of the history of Greece, etc. The only reason we have such a hard time deciding whether or not Urartu is part of Armenian history is because Turkish historians have provoked the idea that Armenians are not indigenous to the region, and the best way to make this idea a realty is to dissociate Urartu from Armenians. I still don't think this disproves our nativity," Armenians are still indigenous to the region because the Armenian nation never existed elsewhere, and began its existence in the Armenian Highlands. Armenians are the amalgam of the indigenous tribes within the Satrapy of Armina, which included all of the territory of the Urartian state, in which the proto-Armenian speaking peoples would have taken over the authority.

@Nakh, very mature there buddy. Why don't you put " " around all the statements that you are too stubborn to accept have a legitimate place in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaced photo with Armenian Crosses "that may be parthian" with a photo on that are Armenian letters. Armenian History template moved to it's section, if you dont like remove it at all. Also please note that if you are awaiting some explanation for others edits. Please be so kind and give some arguements for yours. Nakh 14:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"KentronHayastan", if you want to argue with me, argue about the actual article content, not about some navigation template. Also make sure that your argument concerns Urartu, not Armenians. If I wanted to argue about the history of Armenia, I would peruse Talk:History of Armenia. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A similar argument has been invoked here already, but let me mention this anyway: If Phoenicia is included in the History of Lebanon, a country carved out of the Ottoman Empire and of the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon only in the 20th century, I don't see why Urartu shouldn't be included in the History of Armenia. --Davo88 (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Forst it seems that you dont want to understand?!(Its been told many times, and discussed.) So let try to explain it to you Kentron or Davo doesnt give arguement on why is Urartu related to Armenia just discuss some other articles for ex. France Gaul Phoenicia Lebabanon. Please feel free improving Phoenicia article, but please give up on vandalising Urartu article, and get rid of cheap natism. Nakh 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahaha by the way, according to researches indicated on the Talk:Phoenicia Phoenicians also had the J2 haplogroup, so you can feel free adding there Armenian History navigation template. Nakh 07:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another addition, Kentron you mentioned before that Armenians and Georgians were most close to Urartu, youre mistaken. First of all Armenians are far away in this list Cypriots, Ingushs, Iraqis, Lebanese, Chechens, Ossetians, Balkars, Kurds, Yagnobis, are some (not all) of the peoples that have more genetical similarities Armenians.. Kazbegi people in Georgia are closest to Hurrians genetically. So I m going to add a few navigation templates over History of Armenia, and also please be informed that some of these peoples have not only 20% of close genes, but also Architectural and Linguistic connections. (This is horrible we are discussing this hell instead of improving the article). Im agree that if: Lebanese→Phoenician, than:Armenian→Urartu hypothese is soooo original Nakh 07:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this still about Armenians and navboxes? Isn't anyone on this talkpage interested in Urartu? From your comments, it appears that you think the presence of a navbox is a statement about genetics. It is not. A navbox is a navbox, useful in some cases to point the reader to closely related topic. If you want to discuss genetics, try to edit the content of an article on genetics, not the navboxes in an article about archaeology. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

dab, to be honest genetics issue was started by our friend Kentron, this was just response to him. Im personally not interested in genetics that much, moreover I believe that it is toooo early to use genetics to argue some historical issues. Because this branche of science is too young, and some changes become almost each week. Nakh 11:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, dab, you present no arguments. You impose your point of view without an intellectual contribution by undoing my edit. If you think my arguments do not concern Urartu, you need to clean your computer screen. I will answer your useless statement quickly: 1. I am arguing that Armenians and Urartians are close enough to be categorized together. If, to you, this doesn't concern Urartu, then you have a problem I can't solve. 2. I want to argue with you. The first step for this is one side to refute the/agree with the other side's argument(s). You have failed to do so.

"Forst," Nakh, the fact that you are able to say, "Kentron or Davo doesnt give arguement on why is Urartu related to Armenia" proves to me and the rest of the people reading this that you haven't read my arguments. Second, France/Gaul, Phoenicia/Lebanon, Kemet/Egypt, Mestitos/Native Americans, are all perfect examples to explain and compare Urartu/Armenia. Urartians and Armenians have much more in common than Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians. Yet Modern Egypt is allowed to include Ancient Egypt in its history, but Armenians are not allowed to include Urartu in their history. It seems you don't want to understand. You say you are Chechen. Chechens are very fond of Turks. This is the only reason why you are so persistent to dissociate Urartians from the history of Armenia.

"Kazbegi people in Georgia are closest to Hurrians genetically." What a baseless and, honestly, hilarious statement!! Where did you read this? Do we have a Hurrian person alive today to know his/her DNA? I mean, to say one is close to the other, we need to have samples of both. In this case, Hurrians have been extinct for about 2 millenniums.

Now I'm beginning to think that you have a hard time with english, Nakh, from the way you write, and the way you understand things. Please edit articles in which your level of english is acceptable. I say this because you misquote one of my simple arguments. I never said Georgians and Armenians are close to the Urartians genetically. But I DID assume it, and I gave my argument. Armenians are genetically farther from their fellow Indo-European speakers, but rather genetically closer to Caucasian language speakers, mostly Georgians. This would mean Armenians, rather than migrating into the lands, have had their language replaced, as we can comfortably claim that the Georgian language is the evolved result of languages spoken by native people of the region.

On a side note, both of you continuously complain because I don't "improve" the article, while I haven't seen any of you contribute anything other than the removal of edits that don't fancy your point of view. I spend time writing arguments to back my edit, and all you do is judge me, forget to provide a constructive argument, and blatantly undo my edit. And then, you complain because I don't provide arguments! What more do you want?

Armenia and Urartu share the exact same geographic location

Many places in Urartu share a striking resemblance to Armenian names

Some Urartian kings are believed to be of proto-Armenian origin, by some Armenian and non-Armenian historians

Armenia came into existence immediately after the fall of Urartu (less than a century)

"Armina" became the name of the satrapy that governed all of the former lands of Urartu

Urartians didn't just vanish, they were amalgamated into the nation that emerged from the satrapy of Armina, the Kingdom of Armenia

The Behistun Inscription equates Armenia and Urartu

Old languages continued to call the Satrapy of Armina "Urartu/Urashtu"

Armenian is the only language that still uses Urartian words

Armenians use many Akkadian/Assyrian words, when in reality, Armenians were never under the influence of Assyrians. Urartians were, and it is believed that they became part of the Armenian language through the Urartian language

Armenians and Urartians share cultural similarities, like dam making

Armenians and Urartians compare to Gauls/French and Mestitos/Native Americans

Armenians are closer to Urartians than Egyptians are to Ancient Egyptians

Armenians (and Assyrians) still use names used during Urartu

Armenians seem to have the DNA of people who were native, rather than people who have migrated

Armenians are the only people to have somewhat preserved the memory of Urartu in their history since ancient times

Assyrians seem to have played an important role in Armenian history, yet Armenia, as we know it, came to be after Assyria fell, thus,

Many historical elements found in Armenian history coincide with actual events that occurred during Urartu

These are the arguments I can think of for now, which I use to back my claim that, "Urartu is part of Armenian history." If you don't agree, present to me arguments that will outweigh mine. Your usual "you have no arguments" is not eligible as an argument.

I'd like to not that these arguments are far more convincing than the arguments used to include Gaul in French history, and Temet in Egyptian history. Why, then, do you still insist that Urartians are completely unrelated to Armenians? I keep using this comparison because it is unfair that Armenians are deprived from the same right to their history as these other mentioned nations are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

please stop trying to make a point by including a navigation template. You can discuss the relation of Urartu and Armenia as much as you like, both at History_of_Armenia#Iron_Age and within WP:DUE at Urartu#Armenian_ethnogenesis, but navigation templates are for navigation, not for tagging national article ownership, nor for making any other sort of point. Thank you.

Also, stop the WP:OTHERCRAP arguments. I don't see {{History of Egypt}} slapped on Kemet, or even on Ancient Egypt, nor do I see {{History of France}} at Gaul, or {{History of Switzerland}} at Alemannia, or {{History of Italy}} at Ancient Rome (etc., etc.). I daresay that it is undisputed that Ancient Rome is relevant to the History of Italy. Understand that this fact is in no way grounds for transcluding any sort of navigation boxes. If you have a comment on the templates transcluded in any other article, kindly take it to that article's talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 10:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked all of my arguments fall perfectly well in the "Urartu" subject (the fall and legacy of Urartu, more precisely), whereas your arguments used to back the removal of anything related to Armenians in this article ("your arguments are WP:OTHERCRAP", "stop obsessing over this") is the perfect example of WP:OTHERCRAP (because instead of actually using something relevant to the article as an argument, you are using my "obsession" and misjudging my arguments, even though they are backed with reference). And now, I have repeat things I have already answered. Please refer to History of ancient Egypt for Temet. This will also refute your last "argument": History of Italy. I must agree, though, that the "History of Italy" template is not included in the page of Roman Empire, but I see you have taken the bold task of removing "History of France" from Gaul. At least you're more consistent than our friend Nakh. If that is how it will work as of now, on all similar articles, then I agree with the removal of "History of Armenia" from this page. My frustration was simply because other can do it, but not us.

This still doesn't give you the right to remove those small statements which you have decided to remove, because they are perfectly referenced. You are not God. It is an undisputed fact that Armenia replaced Urartu. Nothing in what I said suggested that Armenia = Urartu, but rather Urartu > Armenia. Do you have anything to outweigh those statements? If you do, present them, otherwise, mind your own business and don't impose yourself blatantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KentronHayastan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@KentronHayastan you’re correct on many points and make perfect sense. But what you probably don’t understand is that mr. Nakh is a Chechen it is in his name they speak a Nakh language and together with the Ingush people consider themselves Vainakh people. Because of the lack of records about these people, lack of alphabet and writing culture most of what is known about them is from foreign (Russian or Georgian) records. Today with the growing nationalism they feel the need to construct a baseless theory connecting Urartu to their identity eventhough their only connection seems to be a handful of similar words preserved in the mountainous region. Nevertheless they have convinced themselves that they are the sole surviving descendants of Urartu and Armenians were simply invaders who destroyed Urartu and took its place. It fits their anti-Armenian views because Armenia is Christian nation and an ally to their nemesis the Russians. That is why mr. Nakh is neglecting every other perfectly valid argument you are making and focusing so much solely on the language aspect, as if a nation is defined by its language. According to this logic off course the people of Zaire are French and Mexicans are Spanish. As you mention many times many scenarios are possible that would explain the difference between the Armenian language and the Urartian cuneiform. The cuneiform might as well been an elitist court language, much like the Dutch elite used native Indonesian (their colony at the time), while the language of the people Armenian or other form of Indo-European. Similarly Urartians might have been using a language deriving from an unrelated people for trade purposes much like we all write English today. Even bilingualism is a plausible scenario since Urartu was a confederation and most likely not mono-ethnic. Again many scenarios are possible and the true Urartian hieroglyphs might shed more light on this question in the future. But in any case the Armenian connection to the Urartu is undeniable and ridiculous to even debate. Apart from the language which does show a long lasting contact, there is genetic evidence connecting Armenians to the area and recordings describing Armenia as Urartu and vice versa. Like you say in any scenario the fact remains that the Armenian identity and the ethnicity has emerged in the Urartian lands. Dislocating Urartu from Armenia is a joke as with the same logic we could dislocate most ancient kingdoms from the modern republics. Fact remains that Urartu is a part of Armenian history it has been embraced as such from the early middle ages by our ancient historians until today by our people.

The ridiculous thing is though that their page about the Nakh peoples consists of countless false statements and assumptions. A ridiculous notion that everything that even remotely resembles the word “Nakh” is immediately connected to their own people. Like Nakh-ichevan and such. Again with such logic maybe Armenians should claim Ar-gentina or Ari-zona ;) . But no Armenians have to undergo a rigorous testing and retesting and again retesting of their every historic statement. But for some reason the rules of the game do not apply for others. Maybe we should go there set things straight. Nitpick every statement and make it subject to as much rigorous testing as they are doing to this article. It’s noteworthy to state that mr. Nakh is very active on that article and imposes his view as such on this one. My point is not to insult mr. Nakh but simply to elaborate that while mr. Nakh is claiming Armenian nationalism is taboo and should be avoided at any cost in this article, he is making the same mistakes himself by imposing his nationalistic views. He is not free from bias and he has his own agenda that is clear in his statements. If you want to understand this please do read the article on the Nakh Peoples.

Regards,

Dr. Greenthumb Dr. Greenthumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.241.39 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)