The order Hatti-Troy- Hittites has been changed to Hatti-Hitittes-Troy in good faith. The contributer claims that the Hittites are older than Troy. I don't agree. Because, the earliest settlement in Troy begins by 3000 BC. It is older than Hittites who emerged after 2000 BC. I think that the ambiguity about the time order stems from the still older people of Hatti. (The Hittites named themselves as Neshili.) So the correct order must be Hatti- Troy and Hittites. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, Nedim.
- Rather than claiming "that the Hittites are older than Troy", what I wrote in this edit summary is "aren't the Hittites attested before Wilusa?". You see, I'm talking about attestation, spefically, the attestation of the kingdom of Wilusa/Troy. The site of Wilusa/Troy was occupied before the Hittites appear in the historical record, but that doesn't mean that the kingdom that occupied the site was called "Wilusa" or "Troy"; it may have been called something else. Even if Wilusa is Troy, it is a fact that we only learn of Wilusa thanks to the Hittites, and we only hear of "Troy" centuries later, in the work of Homer. This template is not about the age of sites, it's about kingdoms. Think about this: The Hittites ruled areas which are archaeologically attested as being older than Wilusa, but that doesn't mean that the Hittite kingdom existed before 3000BC. There's a difference between a site and whatever kingdom may have occupied the site. SamEV (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- When the template was first created on 18 Jan. 2010, Urartu was placed before Phyrigians. But somebody immediatelly cleared out the name. On 14 March the name was again added and now the date order is restored. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. SamEV (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)