Template talk:History of Armenia

Armenia Template‑class

	History of Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the template attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History Template‑class

	History portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mitanni

Why isn't Mitanni one of the predecessors of Armenia? -- Davo88 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, what does Mittani have to do with Armenia or Armenians?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Egyptians referred to Mitanni as Nahrin/Nayiri and if these 2 are synonymous, both of them should be included. -- Davo88 21:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Naharin has nothing to do with Nairi. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're synonymous, as in they both mean "land of rivers". Armenia is indeed a land of rivers, the source of Tigris and Euphrates, rivers that gave life to the whole area. Besides, if the Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization, we have all the right to put Mitanni as a civilization of Historic Armenia. -- Davo88 23:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they both don't mean land of rivers. Seljuks are cited as an Iranian civilization because Seljuks absorbed Iranian civlization. At the time of the Mittani there was no such thing as Armenian civilization or Armenians. There is no connection even geographically. Mittani had its center in SYRIA, at its largest extend which lasted for a short while they covered barely 10% of historic Armenia.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I found a new academic source that you said I needed. I found Hovick Nersessian which in the New York Academy of Sciences. He mentions that Mitanni is an Armenian kingdom also Ararat arev 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hovick Nersessian is no good. He's a nobody.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the New York Academy of Sciences is no good? Thats not a good academic reference? Ararat arev 00:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That tells me squat! Who is he? What does he do? What are his credentials? I can't find any reference to him. For all I know he doesn't exist. The notability factor is enough to exclude him as a reliable source.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nahrin and Nairi both do mean "land of rivers" The Egyptians pronounced it Nahrin and the Assyrian pronounced it Nairi. These 2 peoples were Semitic, and they pronounced slightly different, but same meaning. The Armenians and Armenia you said didnt exist at that time? Armeni is mentioned as early as 2300 BC, not only that but all these other kingdoms that "participated" in our history. Like when you put Hittites. Hayasa, Haik, Armens is there in the Template. So whats the issue with Mitanni also being there? Ararat arev 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatosilli already explained to you how they both don't mean land of rivers. I will not even entertain the idea of Armenians existing as a well defined ethnic group in 2300 BC. Please never ever again bother me with such nonsense.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying Haik, Armens, Hayasa, these are in the Template:History of Armenia, why cant we put in the Mitanni link also? Ararat arev 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man o man Eupator shouldn't even repeat himself o_O

Nareklm 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Just tell me why those others are there in the Template, since you said Armenians didnt exist at that time. Ararat arev 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haik is the legendary founder of Armenia. Armens are allegedly the proto-Armenian speakers of the Armenian language. The Hayasa are linked with Armenians by multiple sources and inhabited historic Armenian exclusively. Hurrians from Syria with an Indo-Aryan aristocracy whose borders barely touched historic Armenia for a short while have nothing to do with Armenia!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrians who came back and built the kingdom of Urartu. These Hurrians were from Mitanni. Also, Hittite is way out of historic Armenia even. Ararat arev 00:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you led me to believe we are getting somewhere you start regurgitating the same old bs. Hurrians didn't "come back" anywhere...Yeah Hitties are also away from historic Armenia and they are not in the fracking template! Even then I can cite thousands more connections between Hittites and Armenians than Armenian and Mittani.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you forgeting Tigran the Great's Armenia's lands?

The man's time cover the entire Mitanni region, and Indo-Aryan is barely existing at that time. So $&*#ing what? Tigranes also ruled Judea and the territory of moden Lebanon.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) The Proto-IE which Sanskrit was written in, which Artak Movsisyan mentions the Mitanni names in Armenian Ararat arev 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Movsisyan can go and jump off a cliff with his translations of names. Did he by any chance translate Mithra into Mihr? lol-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you also look in the Kurds page, you see that they particpated in the Mitanni. They were tribes and very close tribes with Armenian tribes. The Nairi is in their page also and Urartu even. It says these tribes were with them. So Mitanni's time Kurds tribes were there also. So our tribes like Nairi is there at that time. Mitanni participated in historic Armenians and Armenia. These tribes particpated in our ethnic history. Ararat arev 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a lesson in logic. Just because there is bullshit and poc in Kurd related articles that doesn't mean there needs to be more of the same in Armenian related articles. This is not a contest of who can spout more bs.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this:

As they settled, the Hurrians divided into a number of clans and subgroups, founding city-states, kingdoms and empires with eponymous clan names. These included the Gutis, Kurti, Khaldi, Nairi, Mushku, Mannaeans (Mannai), Mitanni, Urartu, Lullubi and the Kassites among others. All these tribes were part of the larger group of Hurrians (Khurrites), and together helped to shape the Hurrian phase of Kurdish history.[13] These groups, except the Mitanni leadership, are thought to have been non-Indo-Europeans. Ararat arev 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Good for the Hurrians. So what?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak clearly on this last part. What do you mean good for the Hurrians? You mean you agree first of all with what it says? If you do, then you see that Urartu and Nairi is in our Template right? What's missing ? Mitanni. Ararat arev 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nairi and Urartu were based in the territory of historic Armenia. Like Gaul was in modern France and Dacia was in modern Romania. Mittani weren't based in historic Armenia there were located in Syria.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about locations here? I told you the greatest extend was in Greater Armenian during like what, 60 BC ? Which extended all those lands. Tigranes is not Armenian to you also? Another thing ethnicity has nothing to do with the locations. If you are saying Mitanni is Persians and Indians roots, where are they now? Where is their locations now? Way way down there man Ararat arev 00:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I have no idea how to respond to that politely. No offense but it's gibberish. You need to reconsider your involvement here.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 01:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I proved to you also. You dont seem to answer on the Persian and Indian issue . If their ethnic roots are from Mitanni also? Where are they now? Their "location" is not even close man to Mitanni's location. Ararat arev 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want an answer Eupator. I told you Persians and Indians are way out of that area. Mitanni was in our ethnic roots. If Persians and Indians have their roots in Mitanni, look how far they are now. So you agree with me? Let's agree so we can add in Mitanni there. Ararat arev 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember a while ago you said Vahan Kurkjian was mentioning the location of Mitanni in Armenia? So you see there is our reference also. Ararat arev 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to explain to you IE migrations when you think Sanskrit is a proto-IE language... I never said that, nor is there anything stupid like that in Kurkjian's book. Understand that Mittani will never be included in this template. Any attempts by you to do so will be reverted. I will never ever again try and explain you anything. This is the end of it.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this Eupator character? Don't be an ignoramus. Read facts before you resort to your own assumptions. Have you even compared Armenian hierographs with the Egyptian ones? They are similar in language and use the same words. Armenia goes back to 12000 BCE and stop searching for the exact word "Armenian". Its the same thing as finding the word "Greece" in ancient texts. You will not find it. It has variations. Pathetic fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.19.135 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Armenia as it is now referred to is a collection of ancient tribes that used to reside in the that region. Those tribes existed before the Greeks and Persia and certainly most other "great" civilizations. In that region you can find rock formations similar to Stone Henge that predate it; the first skirt, wine and so one. Plus, who the heck are you, meaning what are your credentials, and your so called facts to prove your claim Eupator? I am not Armenian but I have done extensive research on them and the region. Just to recap, Armenia is one of the oldest civilizations on this planet (again, please note that it is a combination of multiple ancient tribes with different names), and unless you can completely show proof that your claim is right, which you can't; therefore, please pipe-down. And, you need to know that the majority of Syria was Armenian land (half of Georgia was, historically, Armenian, Azerbaijan didn't even exist and that land was originally Armenian, and part of the other nations around it, also (mind you this is all fact). Just another note, the Mitanni are referred to as Assyrian, it is very significant to note that most assyrians have become "Armenians" and that has been shown to be true with the journals on Genetics published in European Journals. There are a multitude of facts that I can state, but it would simply make my comment boring to read. -Researcher

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.165.81 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultures and Nairi

I think that Nairi should be added before Urartu given how that tribal confederation of sorts proceeded the Kingdom of Urartu. We should also add the

Trialeti culture. This seems to be standard practice with similar templates: Template:History of Greece includes Helladic and Cylcadic civilizations as well as Minoans, Template:History of Austria includes Hallstatt culture etc. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eupator (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Kura-Araxes & Hayassa-Azzi Kura-Araxes has no known connection to Armenia. It ended about 1,400 years before the Orontids even arrived in Armenia. Any connection is speculative. A tag of

We should add a Middle Paleolithic section under Prehistory and add the Nor Geghi page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nor_Geghi) since it is actually very significant in how it challenges migrations from Africa being responsible for all technological innovations and the findings were in Armenia. We should also add an Upper Paleolithic section under Prehistory and add the link to the Trialetian culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialetian) and we should add the Trialeti culture after Kura-Araks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialeti_culture) since both of these were in the Armenian highlands. MageAZ (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kura-Araks and the legend of Hayk both fall under the Bronze Age of Armenia not "Stone & Copper Age" MageAZ (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see
talk) 03:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Addition of Mushki

There has been reverts to the addition of Mushki by an unregistered IP user to the template in the prehistoric section of the template.

. This very template (History of Armenia) has itself been present on the page of Mushki for over 2 years now.

. The topic of the connection of the Mushki people to the Armenian people has been discussed on the article's own talk page.

. The article is relevant to the prehistory of Armenia, as many of the expert historians of the region (as cited in the article) claim that the Mushki people are one of the primary candidates for having brought the Indo-European language, which developed into what we call the Armenian language today, to the Armenian Highlands. Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument: Keeping Mushki should be the baseline

The discussion should be about removing Mushki from the article.
These three points are why keeping Mushki in the template should be considered the status quo/baseline:

The inclusion of the template on the article.

The article's topic's connection to the template's topic, by Western experts of the region, having been agreed to.

The existence of several citations and sources confirming the article's topic's relevance to the template's topic.

I argue that the unregistered IP user made a false equivalency when arguing in the edit reason that the inclusion of Mushki is equivalent to including the Luwians and Hurrians to the template.
It's a false equivalency for Luwians because there is no mention of them being Armenian ancestors in the article for Luwians, nor has there been a discussion about it, that I am aware of, on its talk page.
It's not a false equivalency, however, to include the Hurrians who are believed to have lived in the Armenian Highlands (the Urartians), and they, in fact, are in the template already.
Let's keep discussions where they belong. If you disagree that Mushki are connected to Armenian prehistory, then discuss that on the Mushki article's talk page and update the article according to what is agreed to. This template is simply a list of topics and events significant in Armenian history; the discussion here should only be about whether or not it should be included on the template, and as long as the article makes the claims it currently does, it's a significant topic. Kentronhayastan (talk)

@Kentronhayastan: I agree that Mushki should be re-added to the template. I also think that the Diauehi should be re-added. I'm not sure why they were removed to begin with. They are likely as connected to the Armenian ethnogenesis as Mitanni, if not more. In fact, there's more connecting the Mushki to Armenians than there is Sumerian 'Aratta' or even Armani to Armenians.

Also, I'm not sure why Gobelki Tepe, Karahan Tepe, etc are in this template. They are so ancient and not in the territory of modern Armenia. It seems like a stretch to include those and some of the other Stone Age cultures, especially if Mushki and Daiuehi are not going to be included. Mushki and Diaeuhi could very well have been Armenian speakers. Gobelki Tepe's population certainly was not. Skeptical1800 (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I updated this template to more closely resemble the manual of styles (vcard plainlist) for most other "History of" templates, while also making it more easier to read. The template had too many articles 'branching' off each other, so I deleted articles that could be considered sub-articles of others already listed. I also removed the years lengths, which were often overlaping, and the "ages" headers, which most "History of" templates do not have and just resulted in the same or similar articles being linked more than once. --Steverci (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the previous version had over 10,000 bytes, when most of these templates have between 1,500-3,000 bytes, so it would definitely be fair to say that it was over-designed. --Steverci (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci: I’m the ‘over-designer’ of the former template. I do agree that it was large. I wanted to increase the discoverability of the less popular articles of Armenian history. Armenian history being long as it is, led to an admittedly unwieldy template. With the current change, some relevant and interesting but not “first-class” Armenian history articles are now relegated back to obscurity and discoverability via links from more popular articles. What I intended to do eventually was make the change you made, but also create additional templates for each specific era. Maybe this will give me a reason to do that now. One feature that is lost with your change, however, was the possibility of keeping the appropriate era expanded for an article of that era (example, keeping “Antiquity” expanded while reading “Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)”). Do you think it is possible to reintroduce this feature? Also, I find the “Armenia” in “Prehistoric Armenia” redundant. “Prehistory” is a valid word on its own, and it is meant to display articles of “what came before Armenia which influenced or led to the formation of Armenia and/or the Armenian nation” (i.e., proto-Armenian history). — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are just supposed to be a brief overview, not meant to cram every single topic inside. As for that feature, I thought having both an era and a sub-era made the template look very cluttered and confusing, and almost none of the other "History of" templates were also styled like that. I agree about "Prehistoric Armenia" though, I'll change it to "Prehistory". --Steverci (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mushki and Diaeuni should be re-added

I noticed that
Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture
, which is included in the template.
As far the Diauehi go, there is some scholarship (Sayce) suggesting that this is a patronymic name (Diaus) and connecting this to an Indo-European culture (Martirosyan, Dumikyan) (Martirosyan connects Diaus to Deus, Dios, etc). Hewson and Adontz placed the Diaeuni originally in
Mush Province and suggested that they moved north--firstly to Kars Province and subsequently to Tao-Klarjeti/Tayk. Whether they were Kartvelian or indeed Indo-European, they most certainly contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis, certainly as much, if not more, than the Mitanni (who are still included in the template) did. There's more connecting the Mushki to Armenians than there is Sumerian 'Aratta' to Armenians or even Armani. Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I removed Aratta because that has nothing to do with Armenian history, nor prehistory (it is purely a hypothetical idea that Ararat/Urartu and Aratta might be connected, with very little academic support). I definitely think Mushki should be part of this template, because they are assumed to have played a major role as a proto-Armenian people. Diauehi, I’m less sure. I think that instead of throwing in every hypothetical proto-Armenian to the list, they can be mentioned in the Historiography section of the Origin of the Armenians article if there is enough reliable scholarly merit. — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aratta and Portasar being removed but I think Diauehi should be added again since they may have been Proto-Armenian speakers. I think Armeno-Phrygians can be removed because they were a hypothetical people who probably didn't exist (I'm basing this off of Clackson, Brixe, and Obrador Cursach, who argue that Armenian isn't that close to Phrygian see here:). Additionally, genetic studies (such as Haber 2016) do not support a Balkanic (i.e. Phrygian) influx. In other words, there's more connecting Diaeuhi to Armenians than the possibly/probably non-existant "Armeno-Phrygians."Skeptical1800 (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history and Antiquity

@Skeptical1800: Having a section called “Ancient history” and “Antiquity” makes no sense because one is the adjective of the other. It is equivalent to having two different sections called “Medieval history” and “Middle Ages.” I have placed everything before the appearance of Armenia proper under “prehistory” because it is the history ‘pre-Armenia’ (i.e., proto-Armenians and others). I think the problem is that there is too much crammed into prehistory, some questionable (as was discussed over the years above). — [ kentronhayastan ] 22:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but the problem is that "prehistory" specifically means "before writing" so I think we need a better phrase, hence why I split it up between the period before writing and after. Maybe we can change it to "Bronze and Iron Ages"? Another note: if the Legend of Hayk is to be included (it's not actually historical, so I'm not even sure why it's listed), it is supposed to take place between either the 25th century or 22nd century BCE. It should not be placed after Urartu but rather well before, between Kura Araxes Culture and Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture. Skeptical1800 Skeptical1800 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)(talk) 05:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another option could be keeping the "Prehistory" section and adding "Early History" after that, which would start with Armani. The Legend of Hayk (if it is even appropriate to have in this template) should be moved to the Prehistory section again, as it takes place during the 3rd millennium, and therefore, placing it after Urartu is an anachronism. But I would argue removing it from the template all together.Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Skeptical1800 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:History_of_Armenia&oldid=1149850483"