Jump to content

Talk:Urartu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New studies

[edit]

Vyacheslav Ivanov (philologist) argues the complete fallacy of all the constructions of I. M. Dyakonov regarding the origin of the ethnonym "hay" and other issues of the Armenian ethnogenesis[1].

A modern major Armenian scholar from Cambridge University James Klaxon, a translator from Ancient Armenian and Ancient Greek, rejects the close genetic relationship of Greek and Armenian [2]

The Balkan hypothesis of the origin of the Armenian language is rejected by modern glottochronological studies conducted by Russell and Atkinson, the Armenian language appears on the territory of Anatolia and adjacent areas and has existed since 7300 BC. e. [3].

Recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian homeland for a 'proto-proto-Indo-European'.[4][5][6][7][8] It also lends support to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[9]

Haak et al. (2015) states that "the Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility" since the Yamnaya partly descended from a Near Eastern population, which resembles present-day Armenians. Yet, they also state that "the question of what languages were spoken by the 'Eastern European hunter-gatherers' and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open."[4]

David Reich, in his 2018 publication Who We Are and How We Got Here, states that "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians."[5] Nevertheless, Reich also states that some, if not most, of the Indo-European languages were spread by the Yamnaya people.[10]

According to Kroonen et al. (2018), Damgaard et al. (2018) "show no indication of a large-scale intrusion of a steppe population."[11] They further note that the earliest attestation of Anatolian names, in the Armi state, must be dated to 3000-2400 BCE, contemporaneous with the Yamnaya culture, concluding that "a scenario in which the Anatolian Indo-European language was linguistically derived from Indo-European speakers originating in this culture can be rejected."[9] They further note that this lends support to the Indo-Hittite hypothesis, according to which both proto-Anatolian and proto-Indo-European split-off from a common mother language "no later than the 4th millennium BCE."[9]

Wang et al. (2018) note that the Caucasus served as a corridor for gene flow between the steppe and cultures south of the Caucasus during the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, stating that this "opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus."[12]

Kristian Kristiansen, in an interview with Der Spiegel in may 2018, stated that the Yamnaya culture may have had a predecessor at the Caucasus, where "proto-proto-Indo-European" was spoken.[8]

References

  1. ^ Иванов Вяч. Вс. (1983). "Выделение разных хронологических слоев в древнеармянском и проблема первоначальной структуры текста гимна Вахагну" (PDF) (4) (Историко-филологический журнал ed.). Ереван. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ James Clackson (1995). The Linguistic Relationship Between Armenian and Greek. Publications of the Philological Society.
  3. ^ Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views)
  4. ^ a b Haak 2015.
  5. ^ a b Reich 2018, p. 177.
  6. ^ Damgaard 2018.
  7. ^ Wang 2018.
  8. ^ a b Grolle 2018, p. 108.
  9. ^ a b c Kroonen, Barjamovic & Peyrot 2018, p. 9.
  10. ^ Indo-European.eu, Proto-Indo-European homeland south of the Caucasus?
  11. ^ Kroonen, Barjamovic & Peyrot 2018, p. 7.
  12. ^ Wang 2018, p. 15.

KURDISTAN

[edit]

I wanted to add "Kurdistan" as a part of geographic description of Urartu's historic lands. It has been deleted twice with false allegations or without any reasoning. How can we solve this? Kurdistan and Urartu history/geography is intertwined and has to be mentioned together.

Kurdistan is not a well-defined toponym or geologic term like Armenian Highlands or Anatolia nor is it a recognized political concept with a fixed definition (besides being basically anywhere where Kurdish-speaking people live) like Turkey is. Additionally, there is no connection between the historical polity called "Urartu" and the modern ethno-concept "Kurdistan." Their history is not intertwined. Additionally, there are thousands of years between the ancient kingdom/confederation Urartu and the modern concept Kurdistan. There is no need to add "Kurdistan" to this page. The location of Urartu, as mentioned in this article as is, is sufficient to signify where Urartu was located.Skeptical1800 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdistan is very well defined for any objective observer. Foxmulder ms (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess, Foxmulder considers him/her self to be an objective observer, and that anyone who says otherwise is not. I agree with Skeptical - there is no justification for mentioning "Kurdistan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.192.115 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard University

[edit]

According to Harvard University's genetic studies, Urartians aren't related to Armenians. [1][2][3]

Languages: Chechen and Ingush

[edit]

Just lol. Neither of those languages are near Urartu, even if we posit that Northeast Caucasian, Kartvelian, Hurro-Urartian and Northwest Caucasian all share some ancient common link.2600:4040:476C:8A00:4F3:DEAE:4193:3A8A (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

Why was content such as below removed? The sources are high quality sources.

These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.[1] Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".[2]

The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".[3]

? Bogazicili (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical1800, how are the above outdated? Some of the recently added sources are from 1980 [1].

In this edit [2], this was added: Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian. Where is this in the source: A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia? Bogazicili (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is provided and cited. It is from 2022 (i.e. far more recent than 1980):
"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)."
"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there, and that Iranian languages may have been introduced to the Iranian plateau from Central Asia only in the 1st millennium."
The source is here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0755 and here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/
Additionally, your Gregory Areshian quote is taken out of context. I suggest you read the entire paper by Areshian. He argues the opposite of what you're claiming he argues. In another spot, you removed an Areshian quote from the exact same paper that assigned Armenian etymologies to Urartian-era and post-Urartian-era names.
You removed other sourced material from Petrosyan (2019), citing R. Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and P. Kretschmer, suggesting Indo-European etymologies for Urartian kings' names. This paper was published in the exact same peer-reviewed collection your Areshian (mis)quote was published in.https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu
You baselessly removed Ali Çifçi's location of Aramale. Çifçi cited Zimansky (who was good enough for you to intentionally (mis)represent elsewhere for the potential NEC-Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection).
Zimansky's full quote regarding a NEC-Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection is as follows: "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." That is hardly an endorsement of this theory, but rather an acknowledgement the theory exists but has little evidence supporting it and many skeptics.
Your edits consistently use non-ORACC standardized, outdated transliterations of names. It's Argishti, not Argishtis. It's Diuṣini but Diaṣuni.
English Wikipedia does not use metric, but English standard measurements (so miles, not kilometers). And the distances you wrote are unimportant.
BC is not scientific. BCE is.
You reverted to unsourced claims, such as "The Urartians originally would have used these locally developed hieroglyphs, but later adapted the Assyrian cuneiform script for most purposes. After the 8th century BC, the hieroglyphic script would have been restricted to religious and accounting purposes." This is entirely speculative and serves no purpose.
"Arme-Shupria" is an outdated and baseless term invented by Soviets. It has no scientific or historical foundation.
And the writing in your revisions is just generally poor and in need of editing. Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really explain why you removed sourced content above.
You said: Additionally, your Gregory Areshian quote is taken out of context. I suggest you read the entire paper by Areshian. He argues the opposite of what you're claiming he argues.
Please provide the paper and the quote.
You also didn't provide any explanation why removed other sources, which were The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia and The Kingdom of Armenia: A history.
For the content you added:
You said the source says: The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there, and that Iranian languages may have been introduced to the Iranian plateau from Central Asia only in the 1st millennium.
This is your wording again: Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian
Your wording seems like a misrepresentation of the source, because the source specifically mentions "or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population" as an additional possible explanation.
You can restore some of your other contributions, such as those with reliable sources. But if any disagreement persists with respect to above issues or others, we will have to proceed to WP:DRN Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Areshian source is provided. Anyway, since you insist on what it says, you must know its contents.
That's not a misrepresentation. The Lazaridis 2022 source literally says "The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)" and "from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population)". In other words, they were related to Indo-Europeans from BA Armenia and may have spoken a language connected to Armenian.
The quote from Oxford handbook is a misrepresentation of what it says. And the theory is not widely accepted, as the full quote says itself. Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention "or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population"
You also forgot to mention what the study found: "Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia."
You are the one claiming Areshian quote is out of context, so you should provide a quote that suggests otherwise. I fail to see how Oxford part is misrepresentation. Bogazicili (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said the population of "northern Iran" during the Urartian-era. Not the Lake Van region. Lake Van is in Turkey, not in northern Iran. If you read the paper, the assertion is that the immediate Van-region had elevated Levantine ancestry, whereas northern Iran and Armenia, both of which were also part of Urartu (which you yourself concede), displayed ancestry related to Indo-Europeans during (and before) the Urartian-era. This was a response to your edit saying that there was "no scientific ground" connecting Armenians to Urartians. However, this is patently false for the reasons I mentioned.
The assertion that "The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds"--citing Areshian, not only takes Areshian's quote out of context (he is talking about modern concepts of ethno-nationalist identity, it'd be like arguing because Seljuks did not identify as "Anatolian Turks," there were no Turks amongst the Seljuks) and ignores the entirety of the rest of his paper, but also ignores all other contemporary genetic and linguistic research, much of which is referred to elsewhere on this very page.
From Areshian:
Abstract:
"A new analysis of the Bīsotūn (Behistun) inscription and evidence from other texts of the Achaemenid period supports the developing conceptualization of Biainili-Urartu as an empire inhabited by different peoples that spoke a variety of languages. The exonyms Urartu, ‘Urartians’ and Armina, ‘Armenians’ cannot be interpreted as ethnic terms. Those rather were synonymic geopolitical and demographic concepts used by foreigners until the end of the fifth century BCE. It is highly probable that the peoples inhabiting the Iranian Plateau used the names Armina, or Harminu to define the empire of Biainili at the same time when the peoples of Syro-Mesopotamia called it Urartu, no later than in the seventh century BCE and maybe earlier. However, being synonymous, neither Urartu nor Armina had signified one and the same political and sociocultural unit. Urartu was a geographic and demographic identifier of the Armenian Highland and its population during the Early Iron Age, of the following empire of Biainili, and of the subsequent periods of domination of that territory by the Median polity and the Achaemenid Empire."
I also suggest looking at the last page of the paper (page 7). Nowhere in the paper does Areshian say that Armenian-speakers did not live in Urartu.
Above you highlighted Mark Chahin's The Kingdom of Armenia (it is MARK Chahin not MACK Chahin). That was published over 30 years ago (it was not published in 2013 but in 1991). Mark Chahin referred to the prevailing theories of the time. These theories are outdated. There has been decades' worth of research since. It's okay to use sources that were published in this century.
The Oxford quote is a misrepresentation because Zimansky is merely admitting the NEC theory exists. You left out the following sentence where he admits it has many skeptics and is therefore not universally accepted, and that it cannot be proven with the available evidence. Skeptical1800 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) This article is Urartu. It's not Urartu in Northern Iran and Armenia.
If your goal was to add genetic information from Urartu era, why did you not mention Lake Van area information?
About northern Iran part, you only included one out of two explanations. The other explanation: "or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population". The population in question, by the way, seems to be When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran. So the population in question isn't even Urartu.
In short, your edits were misrepresentation of the source and/or WP:Cherrypicking.
2) Everyone in the area is related to ancient populations, this isn't unique to Armenians. [3] If you think Areshian's quote was out of context, you can suggest alternate wording.
3) The article says " These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages." I don't think this is misreprenstation.
If there are any further issues, we can proceed to WP:DRN. Let me know. Bogazicili (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Urartu is northern Iran and Armenia, not just eastern Turkey. These are the first two sentence of this very article (emphasis mine): "Urartu was an Iron Age kingdom centered around the Armenian highlands between Lake Van, Lake Urmia, and Lake Sevan. The territory of the ancient kingdom of Urartu extended over the modern frontiers of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and the Republic of Armenia." Ironically, according to your argument, Musasir is unimportant and not worth considering as it was a separate polity from Urartu that got annexed by Ishpuini. You also insist on including Alintepe in Erzincan, which is farther from the Urartian heartland than Armenia and northern Iran.
2) The Lake Urmia genetic information was mentioned due to your insistence that Urartians had no connection to Armenians. Lake Urmia was clearly an important region to the Urartians, as I had mentioned that some of the Urartian kings came from northern Iran, according to Zimansky and Çifçi, who cited Sargon II (information you removed for no reason). Just a side note: You are using a quote from Zimansky, citing a theory co-proposed by Diakonoff, that Urartian was related to NEC languages. Diakonoff readily accepted an Armenian presence in the region from before the formation of Urartu.
3) " So the population in question isn't even Urartu."--The question is what a "Urartian" was to begin with, which a) makes your insistence that they had nothing to do with Armenians all the more asinine and b) makes your misunderstanding of the Areshian paper all the more absurd. If you want to consider "Urartians" exclusively "Bianilians" (as your favorite Areshian paper refers to them as), then they were a minority ruling class from Musasir (according to Zimansky, who you cited, in a misleading way, may I remind you, previously). So according to Zimansky, they were a minority and were foreigners to Urartu, which, per your logic, means Urartians (i.e. Bianilians) are illegitimate to talk about on the very page dedicated to them as they did not come from what you have arbitrarily delineated as legitimate Urartu.
4) " Everyone in the area is related to ancient populations, this isn't unique to Armenians."--Well, considering the overwhelming genetic and linguistic evidence, the difference is Armenians actually had a presence in Urartu (or...sorry, lands that were not Urartu but were Urartu) whereas "everybody else" around currently did not, with the exception of Assyrians (and perhaps Persians during the latter days of Urartu).
5) " These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages." I don't think this is misreprenstation.--Well, you ignored that it is a fringe theory according to your own source. So it is a misrepresentation, as you left out the entire quote. Anyway, the theory should be moved to the "Language" section. There's no reason to place it in the opening of the article.
So here's what we are going to do:
1) I am going to move the NEC connection to the Language section. I am going to say it is a theory with some supporters but there are also skeptics.
2) I am going to put the section back in from Çifçi saying some of the kings came from the Lake Urmia area.
3) I am going to put the section back in from Petrosyan saying some of the kings may have had Indo-European names.
4) I am going to remove the Areshian quote as it doesn't make sense in the context you're using it or outside of the context of the paper, which, again, is talking about nation-state identities.
5) I am going to put the northern Iran genetics back in with the addendum that, while they may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, they may not have. I will include the Lake Van-specific genetic information from the same paper.
6) I am going to fix the formatting, and edit the writing and terminology to make this a somewhat reputable page again.
Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed recent changes per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, and filed a WP:DRN case: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Urartu
I don't want to discuss everything here but I see no reason Areshian quote needs to be removed or end of Urartians (Mack Chahin quote) need to be removed from the lead.
Also, his name is Mack, not Mark [4]. I don't see a way to resolve this in the talk page when you are even contesting the name of the author. Bogazicili (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical1800, some of the changes you reverted by the way was removing the content you opposed. I had removed content you opposed based on WP:ONUS, but you added it back while doing reverts: [5]. I'd suggest you to self revert. Bogazicili (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical1800's edits look in good faith with detailed edit summaries even though they don't have to explain every edit, which again shows good faith. And in regard to the disputed content, I agree with Skeptical1800, For example;
  • "Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity"
This was added recently to the article by you [6] and in the lead of all places. It's clearly WP:UNDUE and not the viewpoint among majority WP:RS.
Another disputed content such as "These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages." was again added by you in the lead [7] (it's clear violation of MOS:LEAD like the above), and it was moved to the body and attributed [8] (before it was reverted by you). Skeptical1800's decision was correct here because it was out of place and undue in lead, and their version is much better written in the diff with attribution; this is just one viewpoint of 2 authors, not the consensus among RS. Therefore it shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved to the body with attribution.
Lastly, this should've never been in the article to begin with, which was again added by you recently [9]: "The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds"" – this is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE as it's not the prevalent viewpoint among WP:RS – the majority WP:RS tell us that Armenians are descendants of the Urartians:
Vanezi (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was the version of the article where I removed the disputed material [10]. Skeptical1800's repeated reverts restored some of the content I had added and removed.
Vanezi Astghik, you can also join the ongoing DRN case: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Urartu Bogazicili (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west." It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.
To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."--Site names are repeated. There's no need for this redundancy.
There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Wikipedia appropriate?
Skeptical1800 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Zimansky, Paul (2012). "Urartian and the Urartians". In McMahon, Gregory; Steadman, Sharon (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE). Oxford University Press. pp. 556–557. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376142.013.0024. ISBN 978-0-19-537614-2. That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakono and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakono and Starostin 1986)
  2. ^ Chahin, Mack (2013). The Kingdom of Armenia: A history. Caucasus World. Routledge. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-1-136-85250-3. However, before him, Hecataeus of Miletus was the first to mention 'Armenoi', c. 525 BC, which leaves a gap of a mere 60 years between the end of the kingdom of Van and the first historical evidence of the existence of the state of Armenia. During that period, and the previous generations of infiltrations, conquests and consolidation, the Armenians would properly be described as the ruling aristocracy of those territories (and eventually of the whole of the ancient Kingdom of Urartu), where they imposed their language upon those Urartians who chose to stay (and according to recent findings, there was a large proportion of the population who did so), and even Armenised Urartian names. Those of the Urartians who fled continued to live in the highlands of the upper Araxes ... According to more recent research the Chaldians were a native people of the Chalybes. The Urartians were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity.
  3. ^ Areshian, Gregory E. (2019). "Bīsotūn, 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya". In Avetisyan, Pavel S.; Dan, Roberto; Grekyan, Yervand H. (eds.). Over the Mountains and Far Away: Studies in Near Eastern history and archaeology presented to Mirjo Salvini on the occasion of his 80th birthday (PDF). Archaeopress. p. 3. doi:10.2307/j.ctvndv9f0.6. ISBN 978-1-78491-944-3. Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Urartu religion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]