Talk:Urartu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Descendant communities"

This page is not "Urartians" (which would not deserve a page for lack of verifiable info). It is "Urartu". A state. Humans are not descended from a state. They are descended from humans. While genetically of course it's probable that Armenians have a good amount of continuity from a relatively densely populated area in ancient times, regardless of our view of the direction of Indo-European migrations... the claim to exclusive "ownership" of Urartu by Armenian nationalism is a more than a *bit* POV. See Abrahamian, Anchabadze etc. --Calthinus (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this section was created exactly, however I disagree that a community cannot descend from a state. Humans make up a community, and humans make up a state. If a state stops existing, communities from that state may descend. I'm sure you don't need to think too far to find examples.

Second, Urartu itself is not really a state in the strict sense of the term, but a confederation of tribes.

Third, no one here is making a claim of "exclusive ownership" of Urartu – however, it is clear that Urartu and Armenia are more linked to each other than other neighbouring entities:

• Armenia and Urartu were synonymous from the perspective of Persians – both in the Behistun Inscription and the XV Inscriptions.
• Ancient historians, such as Xenophon recount events that occurred during the existence of Urartu as part of Armenian history.
• The earliest bible translations considered Armenia and Urartu interchangeable.
• Armenian genetics have proven that they have the least genetic difference from Urartians (some have used terms such as "essentially indistinguishable").
• Armenia's territory was almost identical to Urartu's.
• Armenian is the only language that still retains a significant lexicon of Urartian words, and Armenian seems to have contributed to the Urartian lexicon as well (though this latter statement is still up for debate).
• The history of Urartu was preserved in Armenian folk history as its own continuous history, distorted as it was, and was the inspiration for the investigations that eventually led to the rediscovery of Urartu.

The fact that Armenian is Indo-European and Urartian doesn't disconnect Armenians from Urartu. Peruvians speak Spanish, and yet they are mostly descended from aboriginals.

Armenian academics are not the only ones who connect Armenia and Urartu – many non-Armenians do as well.

However you wish to interpret all this is up to you, but suggesting that Armenians cannot claim ownership of or at least contiguity with Urartu is quite disingenuous. It seems to me like the desire to dissociate Urartu from Armenians is more of a nationalistic POV at this point than the other way around. — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, more of us consider to check neutraily of the article, as well Calthinus's efforts has zero connection to any "nationalistic POV", but totally the opposite is the subject, to prevent the article from it. Nobody said Armenians could not claim anything, but the article should remain neutral and not the recurrent promotion of any POV.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC))

Absolutely agree, though neutrality works both ways. Here we have a scientific research that concludes that Armenians have the least genetic difference with the Urartian skeletons that have been tested, and yet this is to be considered "a nationalistic POV"? I mean, we literally have contemporary sources that treat the two as synonymous. In any case I think the "descendent communities" should simply be merged into "Legacy." — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the efforts of disconnecting Urartu and Armenians, and making it appear as "Armenian nationalism" when the two are connected, is a relatively modern phenomenon that began with Turkish academics trying to prove that Armenians are no more indigenous than Turks are. The 19th century historians and Soviet historians who were experts of Urartu did not consider the connection between Armenians and Urartu as "not neutral." As I said, the rediscovery of Urartu was from the frame of investigating the earlier parts of Khorenatsi's history. As much as I consider it commendable to have a neutral stance, which I try my best despite my heritage, I question the neutrality of those who do not consider the two extremes as equally corrupt by nationalism. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

the efforts of disconnecting Urartu and Armenians -- um, no, I have said the whole time that Armenians are connected to Urartu. But not equivalent. The page does not make that distinction. Academic literature does.--Calthinus (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGER and Kentronhayastan: Nobody is going to dispute that Urartu is part of Armenian history. But the simple across-time equation of Urartu with Armenia, portraying Armenia as a descendant of Urartu is simplistic and not the view used outside of Armenia, nor is it the only view on the matter in Armenia -- see Abrahamian (can post quote). Armenians were indeed likely present -- as an ethnicity being ruled over by another, the Urartians, who had a separate language, separate customs et cetera, before the merger of whatever IE-speaking people it was that spoke (pre-)Proto-Armenian. Armenians were also ruled over by-- and contributed to -- many other states that ruled over them. We cannot ascertain whether Urartian/Armenian relationship is any more of an "equation" than the Chinese/Manchu one, the Russian/Tatar one, et cetera. And no one would call Russians "descended" from the Golden Horde. --Calthinus (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Some sources for the absent viewpoint in academic literature contradicting the POV of the section currently.

Let's start with Abrahamian:, 1998 [[1]]:

This path to national identity transforms traces of distinctions between aliens and the imagined ethnic community in the deep past into a story of how such aliens actually formed a root of the primary reference-community.  Thus, aliens present at the ethnic origin time are symbolically transformed into ancestors.  The aliens in the case of the Armenians are the Urartians, a Hurrian-speaking people who formed the state Urartu on the historical and present-day territory of Armenia in the period running roughly from 900 to 600 BC.  Thus, one can say that the Armenian model of national-identity "fights" for the Armenian identity of the Urartians in order to stake a claim for the essential "Armenianness" of regions once dominated by the Urartians. The symbolic construction of ancient Urartians as Armenians in contemporary Armenian national discourse can itself be explained in relation to gaps in the linguistic theories and empirical evidence used by the linguists and historians who, as I argued above, have played such a prominent role in formulating this discourse in the last decade. Though the already mentioned hypothesis of the Near Eastern motherland of the Indo-Europeans "confirmed" the ancient roots of the Armenians in their territory, the Hurrian speaking Urartians and their high culture formed a gap in the continuity of Armenian "deep" history.  Thus, by identifying Urartu with Armenia, Armenian nationalists could trace the Armenian genealogical tree back to the most ancient times without any breaks in continuity.  Little wonder, then, that Souren Aivazian, a champion of the idea of the Urartians Armenian origin, "reads" Urartian cuneiforms as written in proto-Armenian (Ai-vazian 1986: 30-31). [note: proto-Armenian and Urartian have no known linguistic relationship other than extensive language contact at all-- and as a non-IE language, phylogenetically Armenian is closer to German, Persian, Russian etc.] --Calthinus (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is Abrahamian's extensive career as an Armenian ethnologist and anthropologist [[2]].--Calthinus (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The abstract of your source [[3]] does not make a single mention of Urartu because the article is not about Urartu. It's about the path to Armenian identity. Did the Armenians use Urartu for nationalism? Yes, they did. That is the extent to which this author discusses Urartu, and he does not make any conclusions about Urartu. He presents no new findings about its language, its people, nor its genetics. If the notion that Armenians used Urartu for nationalistic reasons can be used to disregard all of the citations on this article, and everything I mentioned above (and below), then I have one question to ask: what exactly is the criteria that Wikipedia users expect? What more can be provided so that the sentence "Armenia is the successor of Urartu" can be considered as "neutral"?

"portraying Armenia as a descendant of Urartu is simplistic and not the view used outside of Armenia" I beg to differ. The general consensus is that Armenians are descended from Urartians. How can one claim that this viewpoint is "absent" after looking at all the citations? I will not address the analogy with Russians and the Golden Horde as it is nothing more than your personal opinion. Which expert made this analogy? In what context?

Anyway, I'll start with a citation that dates to a time when people who actually witnessed the Urartian kingdom lived – the 6th century BC Behistun Inscription: Armenia and Urartu (regions), Armenians and Urartians (people), Armenian and Urartian (adjectives) are synonyms. Individual persons are mentioned as "Armenian" in Old Persian, and "Urartian" in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian – and this was not an isolated occurrence either; this synonymity was repeated in the XV Inscriptions years later.

There is no proof that Armenians were ruled over by a separate people called Urartians – the only times Armenians and Urartians are ever mentioned in the same primary source, they were treated as synonyms. In other occurrences afterwards, "Ararat" (Urartu) was simply replaced with "Armenia" (again, equivalence). Additionally, several events that Greek historians attribute to Armenian history within the following two centuries (i.e., wars with Assyrians, Astyages, Cyrus, etc.) are all now known to be part of Urartian history. The equivalence of Armenia and Urartu, and Armenians and Urartians, is as ancient as the term "Armenia" itself. This is not my POV, this is a historical fact. "Armenians were indeed likely present -- as an ethnicity being ruled over by another, the Urartians" <-- this is POV. Show me your proof.

The notion of the nobility speaking and/or writing a language different from what is spoken by the common folk (or even themselves) is so widespread in history, that it shocks me that it is still used as a "trump card" against the continuity between Armenia and Urartu – the question about the spoken language in Urartu is still a mystery. No one knows what was spoken. No one even knows where the Armenian language nor the Urartian languages originated from. One must question the neutrality or the credibility of someone who makes a confident claim about the language of the region. — [ kentronhayastan ] 01:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical Dictionary of Armenia, Rouben Paul Adalian [[4]]: ...an even more archaic tradition of kingship dating back to the earliest Armenian-speakers in the highlands, whose customs of self-governance the Urartians did not root out

Same book, page 11: ..and by reducing the ethnic and linguistic differences of the various groups, the Urartians contributed to the ethnic consolidation of the country... and the Armenian-speakers who became ascendant in the highlands.

Page 12: ... the slower growth of the Armenian kingdom took the characteristics of gathering the domestic institutions and hte soical bases of the small regional powers. In time, that process even assimilated the Urartians".

This is not under dispute. These are mainstream sources about Armenia. Written by Armenians. There is no anti-Armenian plot going on here, cool it. Urartians and Armenians were not equivalent from day one, and the Armenians were a group who, ascendant originally in the Western highlands, came to assimilate the formerly alien Urartians, during the period of the Armenian knigdom. Proto-Armenians existed in Urartu but they were not equivalent to the ruling Urartian people, who they only later "assimilated" after becoming ascendant and including the Urartians in the Kingdom of Armenia. And so we are clear, whether "descent" equals "genetics"... is not an uncontested point. This page here is talking about a state apparatus. Not an ethnic group. Armenia is not a state descendant of Urartu (unlike: Yugoslavia > Serbia, Soviet Union > Russia, etc). Armenians (people) cannot descend from the political state Urartu, because humans descend from humans, period.--Calthinus (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, yes we do know what Armenian -- and also German, Hindi, etc -- descends from. And we know specifically it is not Urartian or its brother Hurrian. Do read the linked pages before you reply.--Calthinus (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan, I have nothing to with any Turkish propaganda (moreover I am opposing it), regarding your other remark "I question the neutrality of those who do not consider the two extremes as equally corrupt by nationalism" I do not know whom you referred. I fully agree with Calthinus and POV/nationalism starts at the point when the Urartians are claimed to be equal with Armenians, practically based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as in general historiography based on such many similar positioning or mentioning occured based on romantic nationalism. Urartians/Hurrians were a separate ethno-linguistic group, not even sharing the the same family and grouping at all. I also do not know about any general consensus that would support your statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC))

To begin, keeping with tradition, none of my sources below are Armenian.

First, you misunderstand me and the article – the claim that I'm making, and that the sources are making, and that this Wikipedia article is making, is not that there wasn't a time when the tribes that inhabited Urartu were probably disparate and distinct tribes that probably spoke a number of different languages, but that Armenia is the resulting amalgamation of those peoples and the successor of the project of statehood in the region. Please read properly before replying.

"Urartians and Armenians were not equivalent from day one"

This is false. I'm repeating myself here. The "day one" attestation of "Armenia" and "Armenians" appear as synonyms of "Urartu" and "Urartians", and this synonymity continues throughout the following decades:

Country: a-r-mi-i-n(a) / ḫar-mi-nu-ia / ú-ra-áš-ṭu

People: a-r-mi-i-n-y(a) / ḫar-mi-nu-ia-ip / ú-ra-áš-ṭa-a-a

• ... As a by-form of the country’s name, the form Arminiya-, is attested six times in DB 2.33-63, but only in the locative form Arminiyaiy (on this word see R. Schmitt, Acta Antiqua 25, 1977, p. 96 n. 16). Armina is the source of Greek Arménioi “Armenians,” Armeníē, Armeníā [scil. Khṓrā] “Armenia;” it is rendered phonetically in Elamite as Har-mi-nu-ya (-ip), etc. The inscriptions’ Babylonian versions, however, use KURú-ra-áš-ṭu “Urartu” and LUú-ra-áš-ṭa-a-a “Urartean,” i.e., the name of the kingdom (and its inhabitants), mighty in former times in nearly the same region; the old name was preserved by the indigenous pre-Achaemenid cuneiform tradition.
• […] This time the insurgence was led by a certain Arakha, the son of Haldita, […]. In the Old Persian and Elamite versions of the Behistun text he is called an Armenian, while in the Akkadian version he is referred to as an Urartian.
• Let us look at the names of the actors related to Armenia in the Behistun inscription. The rebel from Urartu-Armenia is named Arkha, son of Haldita. While the etymology of Arkha is unclear (where Ar(a)kh / Araxa, the suffix –khi/kha is most likely Hurrian-Urartian), Haldita, “Haldi is great,” is theophoric with Haldi, the chief god of the Urartian pantheon.11 Hence, Arkha, son of Haldita, has a strong association with the Urartian world. Not only the name exsits, but also toponyms with “Haldi” appears in the Urartian world, such as Haldei pātre, Haldiriu, Halitu.

Now if you're telling me that there were probably different tribes, no one disputes that as mentioned earlier.

"Proto-Armenians existed in Urartu but they were not equivalent to the ruling Urartian people" [...] "This is not under dispute."

First, we already mention this in the article, so what's your point? Second, on the contrary, this is very much under dispute – the ethnic composition of Urartu is actually one of the primary topics that still eludes academics in Urartology. You've taken passages of academics describing what they speculate, and are presenting them here like it's a settled affair. Not a single academic on this planet would not preface those quotes with "we don't know for certain, but this is what we think."

If one regards the Kingdom of Van as an empire in this sense, it is easy to see why all trace of it could disappear so quickly. Far from being grounded on long-standing cultural uniformities, it was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings.

On a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (very), how confident does Zimansky sound on the ethnic composition of Urartu in this passage when presented in full context?

"the Armenians were a group who, ascendant originally in the Western highlands, came to assimilate the formerly alien Urartians"

Again, you're presenting academic speculations as a settled affair. Which research paper has conclusively proven this? We do not know where Armenians come from – the notion that the Armenian language was brought through the Western Highlands is a generally accepted hypothesis. For all we know, the Armenian hypothesis (which has recently grown in support) may have been true, and the Armenians were there all along (see the Zimansky quote above). Also, you need to make a distinction between "Armenians" and "[proto-]Armenian language" because there were no "Armenians" that we know of at this point. In any case, please show me the research paper that conclusively proves where the Armenian language comes from – I've been searching for it my whole life. Plus, we already mention this in the article, so what's your point?

Also, "formerly alien" <-- POV (again, see quote #3 below).

"And we know specifically [the Armenian language] is not [descended from] Urartian"

"Urartians/Hurrians were a separate ethno-linguistic group, not even sharing the the same family"

Again the language argument...

1. No one is claiming that the Armenian language descended from Urartian.
2. Find me a research paper that conclusively proves which language was spoken by the peoples of Urartu.
3. What does the fact that the Armenian language and Urartian are not part of the "same family and grouping at all" have to do with anything? Persian, Greek and Russian are IE and Turkish and Arabic are not IE – what difference did that make when they ruled over Armenia? Let's assume that Urartian was an IE language – as long as it was not Armenian, we would still be asking the same "where did Armenian come from" question today.
4. Genetic studies show language replacement and not population replacement. You even alluded to this yourself, so what's the point of bringing up the fact that Urartian and Armenian are not even part of the same family?

Can we please finally shelve this straw man?

"This page here is talking about a state apparatus."

Says who? When did we make up this rule that we are not allowed to discuss the people of a state, or a people who came from within a state, in an article about said state?

"Armenia is not a state descendant of Urartu"

"I also do not know about any general consensus that would support your statement."

1. The Urartians were succeeded in the area in the 6th century BCE by the Armenians.
2. Armenia is Urartu and Urartu is Ararat
3. It is now recognized that the rudiments of the Armenian state go back not only to the epoch of the collapse of Urartu and Assyria, but even further. Piotrovsky believes that its nucleus was the kingdom of Shubria, which he identifies with Arme. He supposes that a Scythian-Armenian league emerged here in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., but that Shubria itself already had been a state earlier. Perhaps it is more likely that the nucleus of the Armenian nation is to be sought in the kingdom of Melid, capital of the XIII satrapy of Armenia in the 5th century B.C., and perhaps also the capital of the Armenian kingdom of the legendary Tigran I in the 6th century B.C. Melid was also the "Land of Hatti" of the 12th-8th centuries B.C. The Mushkian kingdom of Alzi in the 12th to 9th centuries B.C., later included in Urartu, can also be viewed as one of the nuclei of the Armenian state, but to a certain extent we can view as such nuclei any Hurrian, Urartian, or Luwian kingdom in the Armenian Highlands. These states were also created by ethnic groups which were not foreign to the Armenians, by people whose descendants merged with the Armenian nation, although at the time they themselves still spoke other languages.
4. Here, as we know from the above- mentionaed inscriptions, "Armenia" and "Urartu" were synonyms.
5. The real heirs of the Urartians, however, were neither the Scythians nor Medes but the Armenians
6. However, the most easily identifiable ancestors of the later Armenian nation are the Urartians.
7. This affords us firmer evidence for the Human relation to the Early Trans-Caucasian culture, and the Armenian rapport with Hurro-Urartian.
8. The association between the Armenians and the Hurro- Urartians is comparable with that of the Romans with Etruscans, or Greeks with the Minoans and Pelasgians (from an Armenian source citing Diakonoff)
9. Urartu lived on as a satrapy, and later as an independent kingdom called Armenia.

So, we have academic speculations about the origins of the individual tribes or peoples that we all agree were part of those "assimilated" or "absorbed" or "amalgamated" peoples who became homogenized as Armenians. We also have here non-Armenian sources, and many from some of the most reputable Urartologists, that consider Armenia as the successor of Urartu. We have ancient sources that even treat Armenia/Armenians and Urartu/Urartians as synonyms. We also have genetic proof linking Urartians and Armenians, based on studies published within the last 5 years. Find me which part of this article you still consider "not neutral"? — [ kentronhayastan ] 11:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We know and can translate much of the core vocab of Urartian. A minority theory thinks it is related to Indo-European but literally nobody serious thinks it is the ancestor of Proto-Armenian. As for your personal interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources, this is an invalid argument to begin with but note that we have plenty of known cases where names are used... deceptively. Angloamericans in Utah do not come from Utes, Bulgarians do not primarily descend from Turkic Bulgars nor does their Slavic language, ditto French people and France, ditto Avars and Avaria; that Armenians per classicism get called Urartians means nothing. And no this is not an arbitrary "rule" to not say humans descend from a state it is common sense. A human consists of natural organs, skin, hair, lungs, etc. A state consists of a treasury, an army, etc. As you can see there is a bit of an issue equating people and state, though the modus vivendi of nationalism is to neutralize this. RS consider Urartu a multiethnic state anyhow, and though there is no one to one mapping, the descendants of its inhabitants today belong to different ethnic groups, not *just* Armenians.--Calthinus (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read before replying. You first sentence shows to me you have not. — [ kentronhayastan ] 16:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did not read of all it. You left me 10K bytes of text. I will get to replying to the rest when time allows. In general, nobody disputes that historic Armenia and Urartu are geographically equivalent, nor that (some) Armenians descend from (some) Urartians. This page is implying Armenians, full stop without exception, descend from Urartians, full stop without exception. We do not do this. Mexicans descend from Aztecs. But we do not count Mexicans as a "descendant community" of the Aztec Empire. That would be absurd.--Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding point by point:

1. This does not support your statement. Utes were succeeded by Angloamericans, Aztecs by Mexicans.

2. That is geography. Geography does not equal state descent nor ethnic descent.

3. Not disputed, but does not warrant the simplistic attribution of Urartu as Armenian national property that is exclusive and not part of the heritage of other peoples of the regions. That Urartu is part of the formation of Armenian people is relevant and the page should discuss it, I do not dispute it one bit. What I am disputing is the simplistic diachronic equivalence the page is making.

4. Again, that's irrelevant as we are talking about people and not geography. A chunk of Turkey is equivalent to Western Armenia. Does that make Turks equivalent to Western Armenians? No... nor are Turks *equivalent* to Hittites, Greeks, Luwians, whatever (and for that matter, they are also not equivalent to the Central Asian Oghuz linguistic forebears).

5. That's the author's opinion. As a matter of fact I agree that Armenians are a bit more related to Urartians than "Medes or Scythians" are. But that is beside the point.

6. Again, subjective.

7. Irrelevant to the POV I am disputing.

8. Curious, Diakonoff also relates Urartian to Nakh and Lezgic [[5]]. To be fair, this view was popular in the Soviet Union and remains such in the North Caucasus and in Georgia, but Western experts (Johanna Nichols, etc) do not find it sufficiently demonstrated (personally I once believed it and have had to reform my viewpoint in light of recent work that shows it is possible but cannot be confirmed at present); still, it is vexing to use Diakonoff to "claim" Urartu for Armenia when he also argues for its links to the North Caucasus.

9. And yet again, that is geography. By the way being a state descendant does not mean demography and geography. Mexico is not a state descendant of the Aztecs, Austria is not a state descendant of Noricum. The term is a political one, not about people or land.--Calthinus (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So then you're straw manning me about this whole Urartian/IE thing? Point to me which line I made the assertion you're responding to.

I reject your dismissal of all of my citations as WP:PRIMARY simply because I pointed to a primary reference once or twice somewhere in this whole discussion. I have supplied multiple secondary and tertiary sources referencing that primary source already.

I also reject your dismissal of my citations as "author's opinion" or "subjective" or "irrelevant."

All of your analogies are your POV and have no place in this discussion – Urartu/Armenia is not Angoamericans/Utes. If you want to have scholarly conversation, provide to me an analogy that a scholarly person has made, as I have.

A state consists of a treasury, an army, etc., ... and what else? People. It's absurd that you're trying to push this odd notion that "an article about a state can't discuss the people who emerged from it." Where is this rule found?

Besides, I have provided many references to Satrapy of Armenia (state) being the successor of Urartu (state), but you have simply dismissed or ignored them.

When reading these experts, be careful not to mix up the language and the people who spoke/speak it. When Diakonoff links Urartu to the North Caucasus, he's talking about the linguistic origins. When Diakonoff links Urartu to Armenia, he's talking about the polity.

It doesn't matter if you personally disagree – there is enough scholarly research concluding that Armenia is the geopolitical successor of Urartu, even if some other peoples (such as the Kurds) were probably also influenced by Urartu as well. If you feel like there's too much focus on Armenia, how about you add the details about others instead of removing cited details about Armenia?

Look, I will not repeat myself anymore. Either respond to my arguments without pushing your POV, or just tell me which parts of the article that bother you and let's discuss how we can remedy them one by one, if there's anything to remedy.

For this section ("descendent communities"), I certainly agree that it is odd – how about we just move it to "legacy"? — [ kentronhayastan ] 17:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've incorporated the content of the "descendent communities" into "Legacy" and renamed it to "Appearance of Armenia" becuase that is all it talks about. I hope you have no issue with the naming "Appearance of Armenia" because that's literally what happened (i.e., Armenia appeared in the place of former Urartu). — [ kentronhayastan ] 18:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do want to respond to one thing-- you still don't understand "state descendant". Serbia is the descendant of Yugoslavia because it's state institutions are descended from Yugoslavia's. It is not the descendant of pre-Ottoman Serbia for the same reasons. Whether Turkey itself is the descendant of the Ottoman Empire is disputed, for another reference point. Iranians are descended from the Ancient Persians, but Iran is not a state descendant of ancient Persia because Arab rule interrupted the continuity of state institutions (Iran is a state descendant of the Pahlavi, Qajar and Safavid states, however). The modern Republic of Armenia is not even the state descendant of the Kingdom of Armenia -- let alone Urartu.--Calthinus (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Great -- we do agree on that! To be clear-- my issue is the excessive "Armenianization" of the page, but the connection to Armenia is notable, it is just being given undue attention in a way that implies Armenians can claim Urartu as their heritage while Kurds/Turks/others implicitly cannot (alas, somehow I guess admitting the partial Urartian roots is not particularly popular in Turkey since that would involved acknowledging the fact that millions of Turks descend from Islamized Armenians/Assyrians/Kurds :) ). Armenian stuff is relevant where the connection exists -- the language community, the transition to the Kingdom of Armenia, Legacy etc. That is where it should be discussed, plus, I think, about two sentences in the lede (1 -- presence of Proto-Armenian, 2- transition to Kingdom of Armenia). Sound fair? --Calthinus (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I mean by the POV issue I am talking about. The string "Armenia" occurs on this page no less than 180 times. The string "Urartu" occurs 105 times (!). It is ... very difficult to see that as something other than WP:NATIONALIST. I don't think you understand "my POV", but surely we can agree this page is about Urartu, before it became Armenia, and that is excessive. Mentions to "Armenia" should be somewhere around 30-40 times -- not nearly twice the number of references to "Urartu" itself!--Calthinus (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus First, I don't see where in the article it suggests that Modern Armenia is a state descendant of Urartu. Second, I don't think one can apply the same notions of "state descendance" to realms as ancient as these. That Urartu and Armenia were considered one and the same in multiple primary sources is undeniable. That Ararat and Armenia were considered interchangeable throughout the existence of Armenia is undeniable. Mentioning these simple facts in the article may make Armenian nationalists happy, but they are still facts relevant to Urartu. Now, as for the ethno-linguistic aspect of the region/state/polity, well, that is still up for debate, as we have nothing more than academic speculations and hypotheses, which we represent in the article. Third, the reason why it appears like Armenia is given undue attention is because Armenians (such as I) are passionate about our history (not necessarily nationalistc – assume good faith), and we've edited this article to include everything there is to be known about that notable connection to Armenia. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc – just because nationalists have used Urartu does not mean that a view that may be interpreted as supporting their views is automatically invalid, as long as it's properly cited. I've done my best to avoid anything from those wishful nationalistic interpretations of Urartu that I am more than happy (and embarrassed) to admit exists out there. The solution is, thus, not to resort to argumentum ad temperantiam and undo our hard work, but to expand the other aspects of Urartu which have not been given the same attention and care. Remember that WP:NATIONALIST has a section called Anti-Nationalism.— [ kentronhayastan ] 02:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A bit of analysis -- why is the number of references to "Armenia" so high as to squeeze out Urartu itself? We have uncited statements to "Armenia" scattered around such as two obscure Urartian deities who are alleged. Armenian in origin, as well as a coatrack in the language section: Urartu#Presence_of_the_Armenian_language. The last para in that section presents Armenian urheimate hypothesis for PIE, without mentioning it is a minority view. The prior para is a 1986 Soviet source published at the height of the modern Armenian national revival. The rest of the section is more NPOV, but it is still a coatrack for the issue of the origin of the Armenians, which is not the topic of the page. It could be reduced to three paragraphs, and valuable material moved elsewhere. --Calthinus (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I did, in fact, create the Origin of the Armenians article in order to address this very issue – the reason why so much of this article includes "Armenia" is because this article was used as a dumping ground to put all of the latest theories and speculations and discoveries about the origins of Armenia and Armenians. I think a paragraph or two to summarize the Urartian-Armenian connection and the appearance of Armenia, and then linking to the Origin of the Armenians page for further reading (where most of this info is already found) is the way to go.

Additionally, we can give the "Presence of the Armenian Language" a similar treatment – namely, include a summarizing paragraph or two (because it is a noteworthy topic), and transfer the rest to a new section called "Origins" or "History" on the Proto-Armenian language article.

I intended to do this for a while now but never got around to it. I'll do it today.

For the record, I disagree that Armenians shouldn't be allowed to claim Urartu as their heritage – they can, much like the British can the Britons, French can the Gauls, Italians the Etruscans, etc., etc., – the Satrapy of Armenia is the primary inheritor and successor of Urartu, and this is the general consensus, both in primary sources and modern academia (except in Turkish-circles). In any case, let's agree to disagree on this point and see how we can fix this article, because I do agree that Armenia should not be mentioned more often than Urartu. — [ kentronhayastan ] 19:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I will not get into the absurd notion that Turkey is not the successor of the Ottoman Empire (it is both culturally, linguistically, religiously, ethnically, symbolically, geographically). No one said the 1991 Republic of Armenia is the state successor of Urartu. The Satrapy of Armenia, being the geopolitical entity that was formed out of Urartu, and was even referred to as "Urartu," is. — [ kentronhayastan ] 19:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan well, as I said, with Turkey it is disputed; Erdogan agrees with you, Ataturk would not (see Succession_of_states#Ottoman_Empire/Turkey). Anyhow, what you said above sounds good to me :). Also, to be clear, of course Urartu is Armenian heritage, though I don't think Britons/English and Gauls/French are equivalent to each other in terms of the relationship; Britons/English is actually more like Turks/Armenians (minus the Genocide), where the Armenians in this case are the remaining Britons, namely the Welsh. A better analogy, imo, is France and the Franks, who were originally a foreign group but who ultimately lost their language and religion, and assimilated into the Gallo-Roman culture. --Calthinus (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So the approach I'm taking is this: If it's from the Urartian perspective (i.e., Urartu -> Armenia), or if it's a legacy of Urartu proper, it's kept on this article. If it's from the Armenian perspective (i.e., Armenia <- Urartu), or if it's about the emergence of Armenia proper, then it's moved to the Origin of the Armenians page (I hope that made sense). I have yet to do the Armenian language part. — [ kentronhayastan ] 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I won't discuss analogies that I thought up myself here – the ones I mentioned above were cited from a book by an expert and a paper. — [ kentronhayastan ] 20:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Re this, this was my way of suggesting your interpretation of what the paper was suggesting may be a bit off. That Britons were some ethnic/national/state precursor to English people is far from undisputed, and some topical authors outright scoff at the idea (i.e. page 150 here -- "defenses of the ancient British past and the Historia Regnum Britanniae as authentic history [[6]], add to that Welsh nationalists being offended et cetera et cetera).--Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree – while the Franks lost their language, Armenian ended up flourishing in the area (at least, by the 5th century AD).— [ kentronhayastan ] 02:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That works^. --Calthinus (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Kentronhayastan,

however many of your point has been well answered by Calthinus, I refuse any accusation of "regarding straw man argumentation", it is a clear boomerang from your behalf. You listed many assumptions and hyphothesis, the name argument is the most weak of them, as that not necessarily means being the same ethnicity or language, as similar has been carried out multiple times in history regarding many other nations, as pointed out. Urartian was an agglutinative language, while Armenian is Indo-European, etc., so obviously have a different grouping and origin. As well, what you list by your assumed "general consensus" are mostly nothing more than some opinions or assumptions, or etymological assumptions, etc., but mainly not in connection what I referred (it is not about geography or who ruled where etc., not this was the catch).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC))

We know that Armenians (meaning, speakers of the Armenian language) lived in the state we call Urartu (more accurately, Bianili) due to the presence of etymological Armenian names, of Indo-European origin, which were attested by the Urartian kings, in their Proto-Armenian form. For example, Uduri-Etiuni and Uelikuni. "Udur" very likely comes from PIE "wodr" ("water") (Uduri-Etiuni has been located on the shores of Lake Sevan). "Uel" very likely comes from PIE "wel." PIE w>PArm u>ModArm>g. Uelikuni is synonymous with Modern Armenian "Geghik"/"Gegharunik." Armenians can claim that they are the descendants of Urartu because it's clear that they made up a population in at least the northern regions of Urartu when the Urartian state existed, whereas Turks and Kurds were not present until centuries (and in the case of Turks, millennia) later.Preservedmoose (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Gegharunik -- i.e. Gegar AKA whence the Gargareans came for Strabo -- has also been attributed to Nakh (and a separate claim for Avar and Lezgic I believe as well). Dorion et Tscherkassov: Gargares -- Peuple de l'antiquité qu'on dit ancêtres des Ingouches. En fait, ce terme est la déformation du mot galgaï... [[7]]. Les ancêtres des Tchétchènes, les Gargares.... Of course Chechens/Ingush have their own "claim", here's Exaeva: Чеченские племена вплоть до XVIII века осознавали свое этнокультурное единство и выступали на исторической арене подназванием «чеченцы». Ранние письменные известия о предках чеченцев относятся к I - му тысячелетию до нашей эры. В «Географии» Страбона упоминается этноним «гаргареш», что является производным отнахского «гаргара» – близкий ,родственный.[[8]]. And Gadzhiev: Относительно страбоновых гаргареевдавно бытует мнение, опирающееся на сопостав-ление этого этнонимас самоназванием ингушей гIалгIайи нахским соционимом гар-гар/гергар–«близкий, соседний, родственный», что этот этноним обозначает нахскую племенную группу [15, c. 74; 18, c. 64–68; 23, c. 41–42; cp.: 24]. Однако следует отме-тить «историческую и лингвистическую неправомерность самоназвание ингушей гIалгIай возводить к гаргара» [25, c. 53–54, 69–70] и указать на то, что подобный термин для обозначения родственника, близкого, соседа представлен не только в нахских языках (чеченском, ингушском, бацбийском), но и в дагестанских (цахурском, рутульском, в ря-де аваро-андо-цезских) [7, c. 152–153; 26, c. 62], а в высокогорном селенииСильди (Да-гестан, Цумадинский район) имеется тухум со сходным названием хьаркъарой (а в Ве-денском районе ЧР одноименное село Хьаркъарой), в Южном Дагестане имеются туху-мы, носящие имя гаргарар(гаргары). Следует учитывать и наличие в Кавказской Алба-нии племени гаргар–близкородственногособственно албанам,язык которых лег в осно-ву албанского алфавита [cм.: 27, c. 49–58]. Но можно не сомневаться в том, что гаргареи являлись восточнокавказским (прадагестано-нахским) племенем. [[9]]. Who is right? Who knows, maybe nobody is.--Calthinus (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't read Russian, so those sources are lost on me. Armenian "Gh" does not come from "G", it comes from "L," so Gegharunik cannot come from "Gargareans" according to linguistic rules. Additionally, the Gargareans are supposed to have lived quite a bit west of where Gegharunik is, according to Strabo. The tribes around Lake Sevan seem to have been Indo-European (Steppe ancestry, horse burials, spoked wheels, etc). Nakh/Ingush also claim that "Erebuni" is an Ingush name, citing "bun"--although the most widespread etymological theory is that Nakh "bun" is a loan from Armenian "buyn"--an Indo-European root word with forms in Albanian, Indic languages, etc. too (in other words, if "bun" is a loan from Armenian, as linguists suggest, it places Armenians in the vicinity of the Nakhs by the time of Urartu anyhow). In any case, even according to Jaimoukha, the root of Gargareans is Nakh "gergara," whereas the root of Armenian "gegh" is PIE "wel">PArm "uel." You decide which words appear closer to the names Uelikuni and Gegharunik--"wel"/"uel" or "gergara." Especially within the context of neighboring tribes, Diasuni and especially Uduri-Etiuni (again, PIE "wod(r)">PArm "ud(r)">ModArm "ged"). Uduri-Etiuni ("Water"-Etiuni was located on the shores of Lake Sevan, like Uelikuni).Preservedmoose (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you missed, I did not speak about geography or location (hence your argumentation who and where lived is irrelevant on the point). Moreover, Since the PIE is as well an unattested hyphothesis, what you render here is similar to the Mytanni-Aryan hyphothesis, there are many assumptions since there are huge problems to find the ancient roots of IE, but all you said is not decisive, since also any population that came on an other may inherit as well any type etymological name as it happened similarly all the world. So I urge anyone not to deteriorate from the real issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR Which assertion of mine are you responding to exactly when you point out that Armenian is IE and Urartian is not? — [ kentronhayastan ] 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I clearly outlined from the beginning the root of the concern, as this was also major part of it (btw. by your point 3-4 you mentioned this subject, despite my answer has to be meant for all the phenomenon as others before me mentioned and referred to this as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC))

No, no. Don’t dodge it. When I mentioned the subject, I did not assert the opposite, so I ask again, what assertion of mine are you responding to? Give me a direct quote. — [ kentronhayastan ] 11:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

But Yes. I did not dodge anything. I already answered any of your contributions here I considered to react at this point, read back in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC))

So when you said Urartian was an agglutinative language, while Armenian is Indo-European, etc., so obviously have a different grouping and origin., you were just pointing it out matter-of-factly? Again — which assertion of mine did you respond to? Which combination of words did I type that suggested that I did not already fully agree with that statement? If you fail to provide it to me, then my opinion that it was a straw man stands. — [ kentronhayastan ] 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, and I explained what and why pointed out, again read back in case. Also read yourself back at 01:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC))

Okay, let me reword my points 3 and 4. 3) “Urartian not being IE makes no difference in this argument. Hungarian (Uralic) was the spoken language in Hungary during the Middle Ages, yet Latin (IE) was the literary language. Greek (IE) was a literary language in Ancient Armenia, yet Armenian (IE) was spoken. You see? The language family makes no difference. Even IF Urartian were IE, it would not have made a difference because Urartian and Armenian would still have been two different IE languages.” 4) “Armenian replaced Urartian in the region.”

...and your following response included telling me that Urartian was not IE and Armenian is IE. Anyway, clearly you misunderstood me. I’ve dragged this on way past the point of sanity. — [ kentronhayastan ] 03:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It does, btw. I referred to an ethno-linguistic group primarily, it is totally indifferent from any medieval example of native language regarding vs. the state administration. I did not misunderstand you, maybe the opposite happens.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC))

I referred to an ethno-linguistic group primarily no, you did not: Urartian was an agglutinative language, while Armenian is Indo-European, etc., so obviously have a different grouping and origin. and neither did my points which you responded to discuss an ethno-linguistic group — it was strictly about language (sans “ethno”), because no one, not even Zimansky, knows the ethno-linguistic composition of Urartu. — [ kentronhayastan ] 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, also yourself cited in what I was reffering as well earlier, it is another thing later I narrowed to langauge as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC))

@Calthinus: Sorry to bud in so late to the discussion and I admit I have not read it fully, but if we are to take your view, doesn't that still constitute that Armenians are descendants? Being a descendant is an after the fact statement. The proto-Armenian tribes indeed mixed with the Urartian population which makes the present day Armenians descendants of that mesh of people. Whether this was voluntarily or involuntarily shouldn't matter. The genes of today's Armenians don't take such historical circumstances into consideration. That's just not how the genetics work. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: yes, it does mean Armenians are genetic descendants, which was never under dispute. Actually Kentron and I have already reached a mutually acceptable conclusion. Not sure why this thread is still continuing to grow. Everyone agrees that (a) the transition into Armenia(ns) is relevant but (b) takes up too much space. --Calthinus (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I quite enjoyed my conversation with @Calthinus: (even if it did not seem like it). I'll write here what my stance is, in conclusion. I wrote something like this before, but this thread has become so unwieldy that I would not blame anyone for missing it. I've moved everything that belongs to other more relevant articles, and have only kept what is strictly relevant to Urartu. It can still be improved, but my time is not unlimited. I definitely agree that this article, in its current state, can be interpreted to appear like Armenia is given undue attention. That is, in my opinion, only because Armenians, such as I, are passionate about our history. WP:GOODFAITH — we need not necessarily be nationalistc. We've edited this article to include everything there is to be known about the connection to Armenia, but we have not given the rest of Urartu proper the same care and attention. This will only be remedied with time as more people contribute, and then I am sure that the sections about Armenia and Armenians will fit more appropriately. The solution is, thus, not to resort to argumentum ad temperantiam and undo our hard work, but to expand the article. As for the WP:NATIONALIST concern, I am sure they are not unfounded – it is fully justified to be suspicious because Urartu has indeed been used for romantic nationalism. However, just because this is true, it does not thus follow that any view that may be interpreted as supporting Armenian nationalism is invalid, as long as it's properly cited from reputable sources. That would be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Let's all remember (and re-read if we have forgotten) the "Anti-Nationalism" and "What nationalist editing is not" sections of WP:NATIONALIST. — [ kentronhayastan ] 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Central province of the kingdom of Greater Armenia , the province of Ayrarat is the successor of the name of Urartu.

The name of the central province of Ayrarat is a continuation of the name of Urartu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenech Kermian (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It already says this in the article. Also, please respond to my comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diauehi#We_don't_know_what_Diauehi_spoke Preservedmoose (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Rusa IV not listed in the Monarchs section

Rusa IV was the brother of Sarduri IV who the article lists as the final King of Urartu but Rusa IV is known to have reigned for some time after Sarduri’s death. The details remain fuzzy of Rusa IV but he should be included. Thank you. R. J. Dockery (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Because it doesn't fit.Skeptical1800 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)