Talk:Hayasa-Azzi

Untitled

Dbachmann deleted some sourced info without any explanations. I searched for Hayasa's connection to the formation of Armenian people and added some text in a more neutral form than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia itself uses. Andranikpasha (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian historians

While you may disagree with the interpretation of Armenian historians, you have no rights to remove it from the articles. Instead, if there is criticism of their opinion, bring it here. `'Míkka>t 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hayasa-Azzi existed in the 12th century BC--a very long time ago. It disappeared from history centuries before the first Armenian state, the Orontids, appear in the 6th century BC. The people of Urartu which was the immediate predecessor of the Orontids spoke a different language than the Armenians. I don't dispute that Armenians are an ancient people because this is true! They are one of the most ancient surviving peoples in the world. But we know very little about Hayasa-Azzi itself; most records of it come from its enemies, the Hittites. Any connection one draws between it with Armenia 600 years later will be speculative to say the least. Artene50 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

just because the armenian state appeared through the orontids, does not in any way mean that the armeians themselves had not lived in those areas well before 6th century BC. a state or kindom, and a whole culture for that matter, isnt just forged within the space of mere decades. show me proof of culture, art, literature ext.. of these so called invading 'armens' before the 6th centuty bc. it doesnt seem to exist.. rather this migration (if it occured at all, as the I.E homeland may very well be in armenia) occured much earlier, and its the amalgamation of Hayasa..urartians..hurrians ext.. which forged the armenian state you mention of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.64.127 (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the point: The Armenian nation did not EXIST for it to have been around, what other marker of a nation is there but a language? One cannot decide to list among one's progenitors all those who lived on the same land, and certainly not those who preceeded them by centuries. We cannot provide evidence that there was any genetic exchange between the modern Armenians and anyone else, and frankly very little would suffice to claim the legacy of a civilisation extinct for centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Template

I would kindly ask news users not to remove templates. I have readded the history of Armenia template. If this article should have any template it's this template. See the Minoans article and the History of Greece template, or Dacia and History of Romania and countless of others. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You removed the appropriate portals for this page, and replaced it with an inappropriate template. I am not involved with Dacia or the Minoans. Sumerophile (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't add "portal" banners into articles. It has long been decided that numerous banners in the articles are inadvisable, because they clutter main text: clearly a single article may be included into a dozen or more portals.. Instead, the "wikiProject" banners are placed on article talk pages. `'Míkka>t 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its the numerous templates that clutter articles, rather than appropriate portals, which you removed. Sumerophile (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia:Navbox to understand what templates in question are for. Once again, in wikipedia was decided portal links belong to talk pages. `'Míkka>t 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's project banners that go on talk pages. Sumerophile (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Portals are part of project banners. `'Míkka>t 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but banners don't go on main pages. Sumerophile (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The template cannot be used if one cannot find a conclusive link between the Armenians and Azzi-Hayasa. This seems as if a whole bunch of contributors are pushing Ararat Arev's views down here when the facts are lacking. Almost everything we know about Azzi-Hayasa comes from the Hittites. The only thing which is certain is that Azzi-Hayasa occupies the traditional region of 'Old Armenia'--Eastern Turkey and modern day Armenia. But in the Near East, peoples come and go very abruptly--the Phoenicians and the ten tribes of ancient Israel disappear from history after the Assyrians conquered and deported them. Mesopotamia and the area around Armenia was a political turbulent region--both today and in ancient times. Artene50 (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"These whole bunch of contributors" are the reason ararat_arev is banned. We are the ones cleaning up his mess on a regular basis. As for conclusive links, and whatnot. Once again, that is all irrelevant. The history of austria template has the Hallstat culture, that pre-dates Celts let alone Germanics. It's irrelevant. These templates cover geogrpahic and cultural links, not just national or linguistic factors.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, I reverted your replacement of that template, which administrators as well as the fringe theories noticeboard said had to go.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#The_origins_of_the_Hyksos_-_more_Ararat_arev] Artene50 is not me, and you are using a checkuser ruse to put fringe theories back in the article.

In fact, serious editors are having to contend with a cabal of users, as well as a mercurial banned user, pushing a nationalist POV in the Nairi, Urartu and Hayasa articles. Nicklausse (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I readded unexpl. deletion of foreign sources and silly attacks on historiography by well-known user dab. pls discuss at first. Andranikpasha (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If this unexplained deletion of sourced info by an user and IP will be continued, it will be noticed. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the version by Andranikpasha. The removed material seemed well-sourced. Given that (based on earlier discussions here) the material is contentious, the anonymous editor who repeatedly removed the material should really have discussed his/her removal of that material in the talk page first - and should do that before removing it again. Meowy 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I left out re-inserting the "History of Armenia" template - I don't think it should be considered as being part of the well-sourced material that the anonymous editor had removed. Meowy 21:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After some discussions:Artene50 will readd his text after he find at least one of the "many" historians who claims the text he added. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Dab

I reverted an undiscussed content vandalism by Dab. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

read Wikipedia:Vandalism before you call people vandals. a cleanup of article layout isn't even a "content edit", let alone "vandalism". --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hayasa-Hayk'

Further information: Pseudoscientific language comparison

It is apparently true that this equation is found in the 1962 Great Soviet Encyclopedia. It is also clearly without merit, and hopefully would not appear in any encyclopedia, Soviet or not, pubished today. We can mention this as "interestng trivia", but it would probably be more at home in the Name of Armenia article.. --dab (𒁳) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

lets not spend our time on your OR on modern encyclopedias read what the academic people wrote and stop POV-pushing:

http://books.google.com/books?q=hayasa+armenia&btnG=Search+Books Andranikpasha (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, let's do that. why the google books link? Do you think google books equals "academic people" or something? I will be very happy to accept any recent acedemic reference you may provide. Obviously, that would not include patriotic nonsense of the kind of Vahan M. Kurkjian. We already known that this idea is floating around, and the article states as much, but you appear to want to insinuate that it has some sort of academic credibility. So, let's see your references then. Acceptable sources among your google books hits would be, for example, this. Of course, there is nothing in it that would identify "Hayasa" with "Hayk". Also quotable from among your google hits would be this source (Cambridge University Press) on "Nation-building in the post-Soviet borderlands" which tells you exactly where the "Hayasa-Armenian idea" originates: in 1960s to 1970s Armenian ethnic nationalism. If you want to discuss 1960s to 1970s Armenian ethnic nationalism, please do this at the Armenian nationalism article, not on articles on the Bronze Age. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

I reverted this amazing proposal as it's quite easy to find reliable sources: for instance.
An AfD is the minimum if one really think this article should be deleted (which is not my opinion). Sardur (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

On top, and in answer to the proposer, AM 130-3 is not "just made up": it is for instance used in Trevor Bryce's book ([1]) and is the traditional abbreviation for the Annals of Mursili. Sardur (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur totally, as an encyclopedic topic there is no way this article can ever be deleted, though perhaps it is worth noting that apparently some would like to. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not see any rules or regulations that would propose deletion of such an article. I wonder what it was based on. And it's also quite tragic, that some editors call the book archive of google "google books" and build up a thesis on this. Aregakn (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You can read it via the history of the article: "Honestly, some references in this article is just made up, good example could be reference - AM 130-3. There is not even 1 relevant evidence about this article in internet, which makes whole concept of this article - doubtful."

Sardur (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. But this is what I am telling; I saw no mentioning of any relevant regulations by the editor that would propose deletion, even if we could assume that some of the references were not understood by him/her. I mean, there's a way to tag articles needed references, if it was thought so, or maybe "citation needed", but not to propose it for deletion. It, as a minimum, is tag abuse, and could also be signs of vandalism. I think watching the editor can be a good idea one way or the other. Aregakn (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted irrelevant and fanciful conjecture

Nevertheless, most historians find it sound to theorize that after the Phrygian invasion of Hittites, Armeno-Phrygians would have settled in Hayasa-Azzi, and merged with the local people, who were possibly already spread within the western regions of Urartu. After the fall of the latter, and the rise of the Kingdom of Armenia under the Artaxiad dynasty, Hayasan nobility (given they were truly Armenian) would have assumed control of the region and the people would have adopted their language to complete the amalgamation of proto-Armenians, giving birth to the nation of Armenia as we know it today.

This is ALL irrelevant. There is no evidence linking the Armenians with Hayasa-Azzi, and despite the widespread treatment of Armenian history articles as a seamless continuation of the Kingdom of Urartu, there is no evidence to suggest this is the case either. Any conjecture made as to the possibility of population homogenisation of Armenians with Urartu, Phrygia or whoever else is invoked next is both redundant and anachronistic since Armenians (of the Hayk variety) are not known to exist as yet. There is no justification for using Wikipedia articles as a medium for self-glorification via tenuous (to put it lightly) historical associations. And honestly, this sort of historical revisionism might be expected from a comparatively younger nation, but surely Armenia is confident in its nationhood by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanLJackson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your intellectual dishonesty is outrageous. Genetics, anthropology, and archaeology, to name a few, direct all arrows to Armenian and its Highlands as THE cradle of civilization. Your theories are as outdated as the Anatoly Fomenko's delusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celsusinstitute (talk • contribs) 06:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Celsusinstitute, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

There are immense amounts of unfounded assertions within the overall articles especially this:

"Hayasa and Armenians

The similarity of the name Hayasa to the endonym of the Armenians, Hayk' or "Hay" and the Armenian name for Armenia, "Hayastan," has prompted the suggestion that the Hayasa-Azzi confereration was somehow involved in the Armenian ethnogenesis. Thus, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1962 posited that the Armenians derive from a migration of Hayasa into Shupria in the 12th century BC.[dubious – discuss][15] This is open to objection due to the possibility of a mere coincidental similarity between the two names[16] and the lack of geographic overlap, although Hayasa (the region) became known as Lesser Armenia (Pokr Hayastan in modern Armenian) in coming centuries.

The mentioning of the name "Armenian" can only be securely dated to the 6th century BC with the Orontid kings and very little is known specifically about the people of Azzi-Hayasa per se.[17] The most recent edition of Encyclopædia Britannica does not include any articles on Hayasa or Azzi-Hayasa likely due to the paucity of historical documentation about this kingdom's people. Brittanica's article on the Armenians confirms that they were descendents of a branch of the Indo-European peoples but makes no assertion that they formed any portion of the population of Azzi-Hayasa.[18]

Nevertheless, most historians find it sound to theorize that after the Phrygian invasion of Hittites, Armeno-Phrygians would have settled in Hayasa-Azzi, and merged with the local people, who were possibly already spread within the western regions of Urartu.[19] After the fall of the latter, and the rise of the Kingdom of Armenia under the Artaxiad dynasty, Hayasan nobility (given they were truly Armenian) would have assumed control of the region and the people would have adopted their language to complete the amalgamation of proto-Armenians, giving birth to the nation of Armenia as we know it today.[20][21]"

Atkinson and Gray (2003), published in the Nature journal, just to name one, concluded that the Armenian language itself goes back as far as 8600 BP. Falsification of the Armenian history is a perverse discipline especially, within Turkish and Turkified Armenian academic circles. One I receive notice that there is a possibility of editing this whole article, I will gladly insert the references that the article needs on the historicity of Armenian and their connection to Hayasa (which the term itself can only be translated in the Armenian language).

Vahan Setyan, PhD

Celsusinstitute (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I checked the logs, and it appears that this article is indefinitely semi-protected. There is no way for us to grant you (individually) the ability to edit it while you are an unconfirmed user. So, there are two solutions. Either you can tell us specifically and exactly what you want changed (in the form of "Please change X to Y"), or you can wait until you become an autoconfirmed user. That will happen automatically after 4 days and 10 edits to other, unprotected articles. At that point, you'll be able to edit the article directly.

However, I'm a little worried about what I think you're proposing to change. Currently, to me, it looks like the article is supported by reliable sources. As such, you can't just replace all of the claims and references in the article with ones of your own choosing. Furthermore, it is generally not a good idea for an article to be based strictly or even primarily on non-English sources, although the judicious use of non-English sources is allowed, assuming of course that they meet our guidelines on reliable sources. It is possible, though, for an article to present more than one interpretation of events; so, for example, we can say something like "Prof. X has argued A, while Author Y has argued B."

I'll add this article to my watchlist if you want to provide any follow-ups or have questions about these points. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

" re-organized his army at Ingalova which, about ten centuries later, was to become the treasure-house and burial-place of the Armenian kings of the Arshakuni Dynasty." - something is wrong here, either it were Artaxiad or Orontid dynasties, or if it were Arshakunis, then it couldn't be ten centuries, but at least 14. Can someone please correct this, it is confusing.

" and the lack of geographic overlap" - don't really understand this. The region marked on the map is wholly part of the Armenian highland. Most of it was part of later Armenian kingdoms, the rest was in Lesser Armenia. Can someone please explain what "the lack of geographic overlap" means here? 141.5.26.79 (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

7 years late, but I agreed that the geographic overlap statement is false, and made the edit. Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Hayasa-Azzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00004/37200.htm?text=%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hayasa and Armenia

This is a decent article - but since it has to do with Armenians - who have some unfriendly neighbors - I already knew what the comments would be like and what the angry schoolboy wing of Russian and Turkish nationalism might be saying.

The Caucasus are their favorite targets for hate speech and attempts to negate, distort, or cause doubt in casual readers ... those are polite. When you really get them going they would (I think) shock Adolf Hitler.

Since both empires have histories of wiping out indigenous cultures - and unlike Americans they aren't taught to feel they were wrong for doing that - and because they feel their cultural supremacy has been covered up some huge conspiracy - they'll say things like they're saying here. They come from countries where censorship and lies are considered means to an end, and the internet has made it easy for them to claim to be informed, when the truth is they haven't done their homework.

Hayasa-Azzi is relevant to the history of Armenia for the same reasons the Xionghu are relevant to the Huns. Bronze Age record keeping was not all it could be, and the documents surrounding the fall of the Hittites to a multi-ethnic coalition likely related to Armenians, Circassians, Georgians, and a pre-Slavic Balkan tribe ... from around the time of the Trojan War and described by the Hittites as it happened ... and using the actual ethnic names these people still use ... and right by where they still live ...

Well it's not a fringe theory to relate Hayasa to Armenia. Whether or not it's the source of the name "Hayastan" and whether they spoke Armenian is not provable but that Armenian was spoken in Urarat ... even if not by the ruling class ... is pretty certain. It's possible that the Cimmerians brought in the IE language or maybe the Phrygians. It's possible only the ruling class spoke Urartian and Armenian was spoken there all along.

The claim that "Hayasa" was a Semitic name is as baseless as claiming the Hyksos were Armenian or the Mushki were from Moscow. "Hayasa" (which may have been pronounced with a Ch or Kh in Hittite) deserves to mentioned to any history of Armenia. "Azzi" means the Anatolian Amazons (as in "Amazzi" or "women of Azzi") all we can say is: this people presumably included females. ("Amazona" means women of the forest of moon in Circassian and matches long vowels of the original Greek). As for the Kashka their name means "men" in Georgian and their later service as mercenaries in Egypt would give sense to the claim they came from Egypt ... though some of them also claimed to be from Thessaly. I'd say they probably came from somewhere near Georgia.

Claims that Armenia (the nation) is unattested (and therefore the "did not exist") before the Persians named it are neither true nor do they mean anything. Urarat and Armenia are both exonyms. The dates of their inscription aren't the dates they appeared out of thin air.

Claims that Armenian script is unattested before the 408 AD alphabet have to ignore claims from the beginning of the millennium that Armenians were one of the few nations to have their own script. Literacy was probably higher than average and the Armenians very early on were admired for their culture, their business skills, their diplomacy, their architecture, and their courage in battle. For the Persians they were a model minority and their literature shows how well-informed they were. We'd know much less about history without them.

The Urartian inscriptions - on the other hand - are frankly rather paltry in vocabulary and content. They are all royal inscriptions done in degenerate Hurrian or Luwian cuneiform. It's not surprising their empire was almost completely forgotten until recently. There are bilinguals in Assyrian which are most interesting (if you like that maniacal Assyrian style). A few roots resemble the NE Caucasian languages but overall they don't - culturally or in language.

Genetically Armenians have been about the same since 1200 BC - the same time Mitanni fell, and Hayasa-Azzi and the Mushki and Kashka destroyed the Hittites ... and when the Assyrians began campaigning north. Armenian at that point would've lacked the layers of Iranian loan words but as a final bit of evidence note how much of Urartian history was received into Armenian folklore - handed down for millennia after the Hittite and Urartian languages were forgotten. 2601:1C2:F00:AACF:5849:7571:AB2C:60B5 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wall of text; read the conclusion first. "Genetically Armenians have been about the same since 1200 BC" gave me enough reason to dismiss the entire thing immediately. Kentronhayastan (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OP wa clearly mentioning this study from a peer reviewed scientific journal:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015206 Preservedmoose (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that quite a while ago, and will admit that I was wrong. — [ kentronhayastan ] 23:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Some text copied

I copied some of the text from this article into the Tudhaliya III article. It was quite relevant. Y-barton (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing reference to Mallory and Adams text in the Hayasa and Armenians section because it doesn't exist

I am removing the reference to Mallory and Adams because p. 205 of their book (which is what's referenced) talks about the "vocabulary of youth," "the concept of family or household," and "two words associated with friendship." I took the time to look it up because I was sure Mallory and Adams wouldn't have been foolish enough to posit a connexion with PIE *h₂ayos (which can NEVER yield Armenian h- in Anlaut...). Please please stop doing stuff like this whoever does this. This is effectively vandalism and sullying the name of (relatively) good linguists. I will check the other reference because I'd be shocked if it indeed had anything to do with what's written in that poorly thought out section that seems to be written by someone without a clue as to how historical and reconstructive linguistics work.

Okay, so apparently Martirosyan (2009:383-5 s.v. Hay) subscribes to this theory, so maybe that should be added as a reference instead of Mallory and Adams, but he also states:

"The theory on the relation betweeň Hay-k‘ and Hai̯aša- (N. Martirosyan 1972: 164-166 < 1921-22; Roth 1927: 743; Jahukyan 1961: 386-389, see also references above; for a comprehensive bibliographical survey, see A. Petrosyan 2006: 118-119) has been met with hypercriticism. I admit that there is no physical linguistic evidence in favour of the presence of an Armenian population of Hai̯ aša-, but there is no reason to exclude it either, since nothing from the language(s) of Hai̯ aša- has come down to us apart from some onomastic and toponymic evidence..." (Martirosyan loc.cit.; emphasis my own)

Martirosyan also believes that PIE *h_2/3V > Arm h- / #_, but it must be stated that this is a minority view. See Martirosyan (ibid pp. 713-4 §2.1.16.2 with references).

Vindafarna (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)