Talk:Urartu

New studies

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.

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

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. .

Recent DNA-research has led to renewed suggestions of a Caucasian homeland for a 'proto-proto-Indo-European'. 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."

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."

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." Nevertheless, Reich also states that some, if not most, of the Indo-European languages were spread by the Yamnaya people.

According to Kroonen et al. (2018), Damgaard et al. (2018) "show no indication of a large-scale intrusion of a steppe population." 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." 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."

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."

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.

References

KURDISTAN

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)

Kurdistan is very well defined for any objective observer. Foxmulder ms (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

"change has played a significant role in Armenian nationalism. to According to genetic studies, Urartians aren't related to Armenians." 46.106.58.131 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it hasn't played a significant role in Armenian nationalism? It's unclear why you're asking for that part to be removed. 3mi1y (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Harvard University

According to Harvard University's genetic studies, Urartians aren't related to Armenians.

References

At its prime under rule of Sarduri the second Urartu was way bigger

At its prime under rule of Sarduri the second Urartu was way bigger ArturMusheghtyan (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

According to what source? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Languages: Chechen and Ingush

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)