Template talk:History of Armenia

message: 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 Shulaveri-Shomu culture, Kura-Araxes culture given how it spread from the Ararat plain as well as 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)
thread_title:  Cultures and Nairi 

message: 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  is more appropriate for Kura-Araxes as you note since it addresses the archaeological history of Armenia. The same tag should, in my view, also apply to Hayasa-Azzi--all we know about Hayassa-Azzi is that it was a 13th and 12th century BC ancient kingdom and an enemy of the Hittites. No one knows if they are Armenian per se although they would be placed under the Armenia-related topic tag. In contrast, Urartu should be placed in pre-historic Armenia since it existed very close in time to the Orontid kingdom. Artene50 (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only connection we need is that it was on the territory of Armenia. Modern state or people don't matter. This is the norm in Wikipedia. End of story.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't care what aa says. They can be on both templates just fine. We don't edit within a framework of what others might misinterpret. You and AA are the ones suggesting unrelated stuff. Now stop disrupting multiple articles and this template. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kura-Araxes & Hayassa-Azzi

message: I believe centered looks better. Plus, when a list is shown, it becomes confusing since it blends in with the periods and content. Kentronhayastan (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it's even worse now.  the title text overlaps with the [show]/[hide] links.  unless you make the template wider, this will be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's overlapping right now? It's not even centered. (the titles are left-aligned for me right now). I thought it was only Renaissance & Early Modern Age that overlapped with hide/show... which is why I had made it smaller. Is there a way to make text narrow? as in the inexistent ? Kentronhayastan (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  no overlap with the left-aligned and wider box. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but I still believe the main titles should be centered (it looks a lot better). What if we ditch either "Renaissance" or "Early Modern Age"? The Armenian renaissance happened during the Early Modern Age anyway. What do you think? Is it still overlapping (as you know, I can't tell since it didn't overlap for me in the first place). Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles centered or left-aligned? 

message: It appears that the user KentronHayastan removed a very important chunk of the section (Marzpanate Period  --> Marzpanate Armenia) in the Antiquity. Can you please restore that part? It is the part after Commagene, we have our leader in the Christian era Vartan Mamikonian, battling against foreign rule in our land. He apparently removed this part, I dont think this user who appears is Armenian historian, is in fact ruining in a very clever way. Please look out for his changes on this matter. Thank you. 75.51.173.37 (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had forgotten to transfer that period to the new template. Thanks for pointing it out, though it was already fixed hours before this was posted here. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marzpanate Period  --> [[Marzpanate Armenia]] 

message: Frost778 is suggesting we use the word Ancient instead of Antiquity, and extend its period to include (merge with) everything before it (or, age1 in the template's code). I disagree. The original template had the word "prehistory" since it covered a period before the history of Armenia per-se. He suggested we use the word "Ancient" instead of "Prehistory," which is inconsistent since Ancient and Antiquity are synonymous (see Antiquity), hence, both cannot be in the same template for different eras. I opted for "Bronze & Iron Age," since I'm assuming Frost's problem with Prehistory is because he would like to merge Armenian history with that of states that existed before Armenia (be it proto-Armenian or non-Armenian in the Armenian Highlands), consider prehistory implies "before Armenia." I figured Bronze & Iron age which is far more neutral since it doesn't give a hint on opinion on what those states represented, and fits more accurately the role of titles in the template since they represent ages. He is using the history templates of Iran and China as justification for his argument, but I don't believe that is a valid justification. Are there any other opinions? Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "you appear as an imposter" Is that a personal attack? You are a blocked user (your identity as Frost778 is confirmed), why are you editing? Who is the imposter? When you get unblocked, you are more than welcome to contribute constructively. The template of Iran is irrelevant to the template of Armenia. I can use the same type of fallacious argument: Georgia's template uses Prehistory, Bronze Age and Antiquity. Make valid points that will convince me and others that "Ancient" should be used instead of "Prehistory," "Bronze & Iron Age" and/or "Antiquity." Kentronhayastan (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

text: User:Frost778 is someone who got blocked for edit warring on this template 3 days ago, and posted a nearly identical screed to the above at the top of their talkpage... so it's looking pretty suspicious for you. And seriously, wikipedia doesn't care what your username is, what it means, or what your ethnicity is, we care about product quality. (With some exceptions like offensive words or company names, etc.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ancient," "Antiquity" or "Bronze & Iron Age" 

message: The first surviving record of the name ‘Mithra’ dates back to 1400 B.C., spelled ‘Mi-it-ra’, in the inscribed 4 peace treaty between the Hittites and the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni in Asia minor.However, what these scholars fail to realize is that in the Gathas, the earliest sacred Zoroastrian texts attributed to Zoroaster himself, Mithra is not mentioned. Furthermore, Mithra also does not appear by name in the Yasna Haptanghaiti, a seven-verse section of the Yasna liturgy that is linguistically as old as the Gathas. Many scholars have noted that the lack of any mention (i.e. Zoroaster’s silence) of Mithra in these texts implies that Zoroaster in fact had rejected Mithra. This is supported by the fact that Zoroaster did not mention Mithra was because in fact in the earliest Avestan writings both Mihr-Mithra and the Armenian Matron Goddess Anahit are condemned as “daevas” or “false gods” or “daemons” that were not to be worshiped.
It was only in the fourth century BCE, when we for the first time find the mentioning of Mithras in the Iranian context as a “positive’ deity of the very radiance of the Sun in the inscriptions of the Achaemenid king Xerxes II Mnemon. The Religion of Mithras or Mithraism as it became known in the West would soon spread beyond borders of Armenia, not only towards the East, towards Iran and India, but also that of the West. Mithraic temples known as Mithraea sprang up all over the Roman Empire. They were mostly promoted by Armenian aristocrats who already by this time were prominent generals in the Roman Army. Armenian King Tiridates III is a good example, who prior to his coronation was a prominent general in the Roman Army, it was Emperor Diocletian a close friend and fellow Mithraic devotee of Tiridates who asked the Armenian king to take the challenge of personal combat from a Gothic chief, Trdat successfully stood in for the Emperor and won the tournament.
By the second century AD Mithraism was virtually the state religion of the Roman Empire and virtually all of the Roman Emperors during this time and prior to adoption of Christianity in the Fourth century CE were high initiates of the Mithraic mysteries. Most of the Mithraic rites along with the rituals and rites were simply taken over by the newly forming Roman Catholic Church.
 
Excerpts from Pre-Christian Gods of Armenia (Glendale, 2007) by Hovik Nersisian (1921-2009). Nersisian is an author of many books and articles. He was a renowned scholar who in 1991, for his merits in Iranian Studies, most notably the study of the oldest surviving copies of the Avesta, became a full-member of New York’s Academy of Sciences.
About these ads
Share this:
    Twitter2
    Facebook56  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.35.190 (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: add the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Armenia page 24.17.216.223 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Izno (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017 

message: 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)
: 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)
thread_title: Argument: Keeping Mushki should be the baseline

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: I noticed that Mushki and Diauehi were recently removed from the template. I believe that they should be re-added. The Mushki have been connected to Armenians since ancient times (albeit, indirectly, see Khorenatsi, who seemed to suggest they were "relatives" or Armenians) and in modernity (most famously, Diakonoff, but more recently, with scholars such as Aram Kossian). Modern scholars, such as Aram Kossian, Konstantinos Kopanias, and Veli Sevin have suggested that the Mushki came from the vicinity of modern Armenia and perhaps descend from 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 Palu or 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mushki and Diaeuni should be re-added 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ancient history and Antiquity