Talk:Diauehi

WP:BOMBARD
I have removed this thing,

Please take a good moment to look at WP:BOMBARD and then don't do this kind of thing. If there is any point you want to make, use one or two good sources, and then make the point explicitly and by explaining what you base it on exactly.

--dab (𒁳) 08:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot just remove the sourced material. Diauehi was a monarchy of Georgian tribes and you may look into the sources if you want. georgian JORJADZE 10:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * please have the minimal courtesy to actually address the issue raised. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried to look through these sources and check whether they support the text of the article (that Diauehi was a Georgian kingdom). Not all of them are available online, but from what I've found, it does not look so good.
 * First, we have some encyclopedias, such as Britannica, Universalis, and the GSE. No specific article is quoted, only a page number, without indication of the volume, except for the GSE, making it impossible to find the actual reference.
 * Also some primary sources or translations of ancient inscriptions: I looked up the Annals of the Kings of Assyria, p. 90, found this, no clue how it is connected to our subject. The "Assyrian and Babylonian literature: Selected Translations" I found here, it mentions the capture of Sien, King of Daiaeni, who I assume is indeed Sien of Diauehi, but a secondary source about it would be better.
 * Finally, the modern scholarly sources that I have managed to track down do not support what they are supposed to. Suny (p. 6) calls Diauehi an "important tribal formation of possible proto-Georgians", which we cannot in good faith take to mean "Georgian kingdom". Kavtaradze's article discusses (pp. 20-21) the location of Diauehi and its capital, but makes not attempt at proving the Georgian nature of the land, neither does it call it a "kingdom". Both sources mention "kings", but in the context of Ancient History, such vocabulary does not entail the developed statehood that we interpret in the word "kingdom".
 * Consequently, I would concur with DBachman regarding the inadequacy of those purported sources, support their removal and a rewriting of the article opening to match what Suny writes, as the main scholar we can rely on. I'd only support reintroduction of sources if they are better referenced (quotes, ISBNs, etc.) and if we can match their language with specific assertions in the article.Susuman77 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Susuman. Britannica says:
 * "Early in the 1st millennium bc, the ancestors of the Georgian nation emerge in the annals of Assyria and, later, of Urartu. Among these were the Diauhi (Diaeni) nation, ancestors of the Taokhoi, who later domiciled in the southwestern Georgian province of Tao, and the Kulkha, forerunners of the Colchians, who held sway over large territories at the eastern end of the Black Sea. The fabled wealth of Colchis became known quite early to the Greeks and found symbolic expression in the legend of Medea and the Golden Fleece." GEORGIANJORJADZE 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quote! You'll notice that the language used by Britannica here is "ancestors of the Georgian nation", which fits well with Suny's "possible proto-Georgians". There is a difference between that and "Georgian", as much as there is, for instance, between Minoan Crete and Greeks.Susuman77 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

user:GeorgianJorjadze, like all ethnic essentialists, takes statements to the effect that the Diauehi population may well have been remote ancestors of the modern Georgians to mean "Diauehi is Georgian" and then goes on to label everything Diauehi in modern Georgian as the supposed "native language" of the kingdom. This is of course childish and does not merit any discussion at all. I am perfectly willing to accept "possible proto-Kartvelian" as a descriptor fo Diauehi if it is properly sourced, no problem with that.

Old Georgian is the language of early Christian Georgia, 4th to 11th centuries. Before that, the language of Caucasian Iberia would have been "Proto Georgian" or "early Georgian", cite your sources, but it must be made clear that this is an unrecorded, prehistoric language. Diauehi dates to again 500 years before that. Its language is deep prehistory. It may well have been "Proto-Kartvelian", but it must be made clear that this is just a conventional name for an unattested proto-language. It was not "Georgian" by any stretch, you may as well claim that the language of the Nordic Bronze Age was "German" and insist that the Nordic Bronze Age article must give the name Nordische Bronzezeit as the culture's "native name". --dab (𒁳) 05:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diauehi. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202158/http://www.nwalliance.ru/PDF/Daiane-Diauekhi.pdf to http://www.nwalliance.ru/PDF/Daiane-Diauekhi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hurrian
They could not have been Hurrian. There were no Hurrians after 1300 BCE. Also, the Hurrians were not this far north. There is no evidence of the HUrrians beyond the southern shores of Lake Van. Additionally, the Hurrians were not Indo-European.

I posted legitimate scholarly articles linking theories about the Diauehi possibly being Armenian. Three well-cited links. This was removed and replaced with "Hurrian"...uncited. Research published by the Association For Near Eastern And Caucasian Studies and the Archaeological Institute of America. Hardly unacademic. And what's wrong with posting an alternate, cited theory to begin with?

It seems to me that this is politically motivated reversion, which isn't healthy for an unbiased source of information.Preservedmoose (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. By the way, if you’re interested in “justice” and speak Russian you can always see Russian version of Wikipedia, which’s distinguishing feature is an Anti Georgian and Proarmenian political tendency.
 * So-called Armenian theory can’t be included in the article because it is “supported” by only one single er rescuers, moreover, there are nor any proofs in the materials, which were offered. Anyway, Mstr. Petrosian’ position can’t be seen as a respected opinion because he hasn’t any scientific degree in the historical sphere. By the way, an official historical opinion, that was born in works of professional armenologists and today is shared by the majority of scientists and is proved by a number linguistical and archeological researchers  claims that proto-Armenians are  not autochthonous inhabitants of this territory (Minor Asia) because theirs selfname, pantheon of Gods, and, finally, the main cultural part ,language, are Indo-European. That is why we have to say that proto-Armenians - Indo-European speaking people, came to the Southern Caucasus in the end of the 2 - beginning of the 1 millenniums BFC, but as we know, in that time Diauehi has already appeared. It was first fixed in scripts of Assyrians kings in the 13th century, that means it was created much earlier, evidently, before protoarmenian’s migration. That is why any references to Armenians who lived in the 13th century is a bright appearance of anachronism. Bachilava2002 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A) Read his work. It's a theory. Just like them being proto-Georgians. There are no records of them outside of secondary Urartian and Assyrian sources... B) He actually has a degree in biophysics, so he does have a science degree, but he's been a researcher in anthropology and ethnology at Yerevan State University for 30 years and has been published in peer reviewed journals. C) I'm not Russian, I don't read Russian, I don't speak Russian, I don't support Russia, or care about Russia. But I do think that this theory deserves to be represented considering that Petrosyan (and also Anankian) both came up with reasonable, well-cited arguments. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and apolitical. This is a legitimate theory and should be represented, whether they were Georgian, Armenian, or something else entirely. I'd want to know about this alternate theory and it's only fair to represent it. D)Armenians have been in the Caucasus region since at least the Nairi (1200 BCE)...so contemporaries of the Diauehi (which even according to this article emerged in 1100 BCE). Actually, Hayasa (which very well could have been an Armenian kingdom/culture) was located in the same general geographic area as Diauehi, but emerged in the 1500-1400 BCE. E)There is actually no consensus about where the proto-Armenians originally came from...but even Diakonoff suggests they were living in the immediate north of Urartu by the 9th century BCE. F) You find Robert Grigor Suny acceptable but not Petrosyan or Ananikian, interesting. Perhaps you are pro-Russian? Oh, or is it because Suny supports your views that Diauehi was proto-Georgian? So it's acceptable to use Armenian sources (or at least research conducted by ethnic Armenians) if they support what your own personal political views, but anything that counters your opinion is considered biased/"Russian propaganda, ill-cited or fringe. It's reasons like these that Wikipedia is not taken seriously.

Preservedmoose (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop Adding Hurrian
While it's unknown what language(s) the Diauehi tribal confederation spoke--Kartvelian, Indo-European (Armenian, Anatolian, Thracian, Indo-Iranian), and Hattian have all been proposed--IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THEY WERE HURRIAN. A) Hurrians disappeared around 1300 BCE. Diauehi appeared at earliest more than a century afterwards. B) There is no evidence that the Hurrians were ever north of THE SOUTH SHORES OF LAKE VAN. Diauehi was located in what is now NE Turkey, well north of Lake Van. Additionally, there is a lack of Hurrian geographic or topographical names in this region C) Diauehi means, in Urartian, "tribe/land of king Daias". Daias is not a Hurrian name, but is rather likely Indo-European (compare with Diogenes, Tiwaz, Deus, etc).

There were likely multiple language groups living in the region (Diauhi was a tribal confederation, after all)...but there is NO REASON to believe that there were any Hurrian speaking tribes in this region at the time (or any time, for that matter). Chronologically and linguistically, it's not sound.Preservedmoose (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but you need to provide sources for these claims. That the Hurrians were present in Diauehi was argued by the luminaries such as Melikishvili and Diakonoff. The Hurrians did not just disappear in 1300 BC. Their remnants lingered on in the area for several centuries. --KoberTalk 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Melikishvili, but I'm pretty sure that Diakonoff did not suggest that the Hurrians were that far north. He suggested that the Alarodians, who WERE in that area, MAY have been remnant Urartians (who were not Hurrians but related to Hurrians linguistically, FYI). This is mainly due to comparisons between the names Alarodian and Urartian and Khalt and Khaldi. However, these theories have been rejected by Urartologists like Paul Zimansky. Anyway, the Alarodians were not mentioned until around the 5th century BCE, so well after Diuehi. It's generally accepted that the Hurrians made it as far west as Hattusa and established a ruling dynasty over the Hittites, but there does not seem to have been a Hurrian presence in NE Turkey, and even a Hittite presence in this region is controversial.Preservedmoose (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "I don't know"/"I'm pretty sure" proves nothing. Again, you need to provide sources to back up what you just said. In fact, your own words suggest that the issue is controversial. Hence, giving preference to one scholar over another violates WP:NPOV. That said, I'm encouraging you to add a citation from Zimansky's scholarship into the article.--KoberTalk 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't know what Diauehi spoke

 * Luwians were not Proto-Armenians. Luwians were an Anatolian people. They were closely related to the Hittites. There's also no reason to believe that they lived as far east as Diauehi. Proto-Armenians were an entirely different people who spoke an entirely different language from the Luwians or Hurrians. As for the Diauehi, we don't know what they spoke. We know the names of four of their kings and some of their cities. Some of the king names seem to be Indo-European (Diaus), but some might not have been (Utupurshi). We don't know what language these tribes spoke (or even if they all natively spoke the same language). As for the Mushki (who may have been a Proto-Armenian speaking people), they had already moved (at least partially) but the time of Diauehi (they were moved south by the Assyrians in the 12th century BCE). Hayasa-Azzi existed before Diauehi. It is possible that new people moved in. We simply do not know enough about either Hayasa-Azzi or Diauehi to make any statements with certainty.Preservedmoose (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Armenians
''And some sources say that Diauehi were Kartvelian. Nobody knows. Preservedmoose''

Ok, we go according the rules. And other, even more credible sources say that they are Hurrian and proto-Armenian tribal groups, so we need to put that information first, before possible proto-Kartvelian theory. Especially, that Diaoha tribal area were part of an exactly proto-Armenian kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi(Suhma), and then later inhabited by Taohi tribes, who became an armenian Principality of Tayk of the Armenian kingdom.

A) Almost all regions of Eastern and northern Armenia ,such as Greater Siounik, Sakasena(Shahashen), Shirak(Siracene), Vanand, Tayk,Gugark and Sperk were conquered and settled by the northern Iranian nomadic tribes such as Scythae,Sacae and Kimmerians(Gamirk in armenian) who were Armenianized linguistically and so they are proto-armenian groups of the Armenians of those regions of Greater Armenia.Kenech Kermian (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

''None of those people were Proto-Armenians, for the umpteenth time. Proto-Armenians=Armenians. The other groups do not=Proto-Armenians. They just contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis. Turks and Kurds have Armenian and Greek ancestry, that doesn't make Armenians/Greeks "Proto-Turks" or "Proto-Kurds." Preservedmoose''

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that this kind of falses theories spread by those who trying to undermine presence of the Armenian nation, as an aboriginal native ethnicity on Armenian Highlands. Also this kind of theory, about migration of proto-Armenian groups on Armenian Highlands later, in the end of Bronze Age beginning of Iron Age, supported by those who tried to undermine all Armenian history of the statehood and denying Armenian genocide. Very unfortunately.

For the bazzillionth time: Lesser Armenia(Melid(Erwanduni), Azzi(Suhma)) is the mix of Luwians and Mushkians, both Indo-European groups, who created intertribal proto-Armenian language, which they spread toward they ancient Hurrian neighbors(later Greater Armenia) with whom they were mixed, during the decline of the power of Urartu.Kenech Kermian (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A) It doesn't matter what order it goes in. All of these groups are already mentioned and sourced. The issue is 1) you saying "more likely"--we don't have enough information to say "more likely" although some of their names could be Indo-European--but we only have a few names, which isn't much to go by and 2) suggesting that Hurrians were Proto-Armenians. B) Look at actual Armenian genetics. Armenians have very little Iranic ancestry. Rather, some Iranic groups (primarily Kurds and especially Zazas) have a lot of Armenian ancestry. The Armenian ethnogenesis concluded by 1200 BCE, according to genetic research. Iranics did not enter Armenia until after this (1000 BCE or later), so by the time of the Iranic arrival, the Armenian ethnogenesis had already completed. If there were already Armenians centuries before the arrival of Iranics, how could Iranics be Proto-Armenians? C) You keep using the term Proto-Armenian incorrectly. Proto-Armenians are Armenians. By that, I mean, speakers of Armenian. All that the term "Proto-Armenian" does is denote an early stage of development of the Armenian language that is spoken today. It's like saying "Classical Armenians" and insisting that Classical Armenians were Greeks because there was some Hellenic influence at this time. The Proto-Armenian language pre-dates Hayasa-Azzi (although a dialect/dialects of Armenian may have been spoken there). Luwians were not Proto-Armenians. Hurrians were not Proto-Armenians. Neither of these groups spoke Armenian, but they probably contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis by mixing with/being absorbed by Proto-Armenian speakers (at least the Hurrians definitely did). Mushki were probably an early Armenian-speaking tribe. Suhma wasn't in Azzi--it was probably to the west of Azzi in Hittite territory (it was the Hittite capital city during Hayasa). We don't know where the Mushki came from originally, some say Armenia, some say the west. Regardless, Proto-Armenian was a separate language than Hurrian and Luwian. Proto-Armenian eventually became modern Armenian. Luwian and Hurrian did not...there are probably some loanwords from Luwian and Hurrian in Armenian, just as there are loans from Iranic, Greek, and Syriac in modern Armenian--this doesn't make Armenians Iranians, Greeks, or Assyrians though.


 * As for Urartu, the Armenian ethnogenesis was long completed by the foundation of Urartu. It's very likely that Armenian-speakers were living in Urartu from before Urartu was even founded and Armenians were already long established with a distinct cultural identity. The switch from Urartu>Armenia was probably moreso political than cultural. Armenian-speakers might have even been the largest cultural/linguistic group in Urartu.


 * We have no evidence that Melid was ruled by the Yervandunis at this stage. That happened later, during the Kingdom of Armenia.


 * You are right--Daiuehi was located in the same general region as Hayasa had been, but we don't know for sure who was living there yet the time.


 * As for undermining Armenian history, you're suggesting that Armenians did not become a distinct linguistic or cultural group until around 600 BCE. I'm suggesting (based on actual genetic research) that this happened in Armenia before 1200 BCE. All that I'm arguing is a) we cannot say with certainty who the Diauehi were/what languages they spoke and b) that Hurrians, Luwians were not Proto-Armenians.


 * If you have more sources suggesting that Diauehi was Proto-Armenian, please add them.Preservedmoose (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Additionally, Diauehi was a confederation of tribes, like Etiuni, Urartu, and probably Mannaae and also Hayasa-Azzi. It's possible (and even likely) that these were multilingual and multiethnic lands.Preservedmoose (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me such a detailed explanation of your view and position on this issue. I will answer you in separate messages, because it is so many to discuss. In some things I agree with you absolutely, but in some other stuff I'm strongly disagree.

First, I'll answer on your last post. I think the same it was multilingual and multiethnic lands. And they all were united by interlingua of their intertribal communication, which is proto-armenian language. This language was originated among Hayasa, Azzi(I meant actually to say people of Tsuhme, not city of Suhma),Eastern Luwians and Mushkians from XVI to XIII centuries B.C. and spread among Urartians and other Hurrians in VII-VI centuries B.C.Kenech Kermian (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm disagree on how you said it's doesn't matter who is mentioned first. Actually, what you mentioned couple times is really proof my position. Proto-armenian theory should be mentioned first, because aas you said we only know Indo-European names of Diaeni Kings. Proto-armenians are Indo-European groups defenetly, so by all means proto-armenian theory is going first and proto-kartvelian going second, like Hayos is the first son of Torgom and Kartlos is his second son.

Also, some theory said proto-kartvelian tribes originated further west, in the Pontic mountains and some on the south-eastern shores of the Black Sea, and moved toward east and assimilate hurrian Kulha(Kolhis), later known as Lazica by the name of western Kartvelian Lazes(Tchanes). So hurrian theory has to stay second, especially because proto-kartvelian theory mentioned two times in the topic of the article and history of the Georgia was placed first too.Kenech Kermian (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

B) Look at actual Armenian genetics. Armenians have very little Iranic ancestry. Rather, some Iranic groups (primarily Kurds and especially Zazas) have a lot of Armenian ancestry. The Armenian ethnogenesis concluded by 1200 BCE, according to genetic research. Iranics did not enter Armenia until after this (1000 BCE or later), so by the time of the Iranic arrival, the Armenian ethnogenesis had already completed. If there were already Armenians centuries before the arrival of Iranics, how could Iranics be Proto-Armenians? Preservedmoose

I don't know why you don't want to acknowledge my words about Northern Iranic nomads. I wasn't talking about Medians. And since you mentioned genetics science, that is 13% of Armenian genetics belongs to Eastern European Nordic nomads, which is earlier mentioned Scythes, Sacae, Kimmerians. From the Kimmerians(Gamirk) Armenians even have inherited huge topononim in the name of the city of Kumayri(Gyumri).

But anyway you wright and it is probably wrong to call them proto-armenians. But also, they contributed enormously for ethnogenesis of Armenians in the South Caucasus in historical Siounik(Artsakh included),Tashir, Shirak, Vanand,Tayk and Sperk. So for this regions they are one of the major groups of ethnogenetic consistency. Also because some of this mountainous lands were simply empty from any settlers.

In Zaza people Armenian blood is huge because people of Dersim saved dozens of thousands of Armenians during Armenian genocide and later those survivors became Zazas too. This is just happened 100 years ago. And also Anatolian Seljuks were mixed ethnically and culturally with different Iranian people way more then with Armenian,Rumi Greek, Albanian, Balkan Slavic and Cherkess people. Kenech Kermian (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"As for Urartu, the Armenian ethnogenesis was long completed by the foundation of Urartu. It's very likely that Armenian-speakers were living in Urartu from before Urartu was even founded and Armenians were already long established with a distinct cultural identity. The switch from Urartu>Armenia was probably moreso political than cultural. Armenian-speakers might have even been the largest cultural/linguistic group in Urartu. Preservedmoose"

With this I am completely agree with you. So you should add in Urartu article ,that is the name Ayrarat of the central province of the Greater Armenia where most of it's capitals were located named after Urartu.

And again ,by genetics Hurri-Urartians are probably almost a half of all the groups mixed in the single Armenian nation.Kenech Kermian (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"...there are probably some loanwords from Luwian and Hurrian in Armenian, just as there are loans from Iranic, Greek, and Syriac in modern Armenian--this doesn't make Armenians Iranians, Greeks, or Assyrians though. Preservedmoose"

This is very wrong to say scientifically and politically. This is one of the things used to undermine Armenian history and native presence in the region. I hope you just confused yourself, but not trying to confuse me and others. You can not mix historical processes like that to compare them, when they are so different at the different times.

Persians, Greeks, Syriacs, Assyrians as also Armenians each are a single formated, separate nations. Luwians and Hurrians were many different states and nations on the wide spread territory of Northern Near East. Some of them have nothing to do with Armenian ethnogenesis, because they are simply not located on the area of origination of an Armenian nation. And some of those Luwian and Hurrian states and nations of the Armenian Highlands and plains of Northern Euphrates are completely became Armenians, when they adopted new intertribal language. So, if they are not completely linguisticly proto-armenians, they are defenetly proto-armenians genetically, culturally and politically.

There was no Hellenistic influence on Proto-armenian language, like you said, because there was no Greek influence in this regions in the Second Millennium B.C. when Proto-armenian language was formated. Kenech Kermian (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you knew this fact for example, that urartian kings, when they build their new capital Erebuni(future Erevan) , they settled in the new city Luwians from upper Euphrates plains, which they conquered at that moment. So, the base of ethnogenesis of the Armenians of the Erevan area is Luwians of Erebuni in this case.Kenech Kermian (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I object to the rearrangement of the hypothesized protogroups in an alphabetic order. First of all, the most common assumption is still their predominantly Hurrian identity, then comes Kartvelian, and then Indo-European. I would like to rewrite the article sometime soon and I would welcome contribution from both of you. However, there are a few things that need to be addressed:
 * 1. Sources on their Indo-European origin are scarce. Kenech Kermian, I hope you can provide sources for the alleged Iranian theory.
 * 2. Preservedmoose is absolutely correct when saying that most probably Diauehi was multhiethnic, there is, a mix of tribes of different linguistic affiliation. However, (s)he errs in identifying them as proto-Armenian. They probably contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis as did a number of other Hurrian groups, but the problem is that, by definition, "proto-Armenian" refers to a group bearing a language ancestral to Armenian. By that logic, any group or people, dwelling in eastern Anatolia and neighboring areas can be named "proto-Armenian", which is not correct. Again, proto-X implies bearing a proto-language. That's a scholarly consensus. --KoberTalk 05:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Kober. I don't know if I said that they were Proto-Armenian but rather had sort of Indo-European component. What I said was that the Mushki may have been Proto-Armenian (this is according to Diakonoff) who came from the general Hayasa/Diauehi region (if I recall correctly, the Assyrians said that they came from this region--and we also have Moschoi and Meshkhi in this area, which Diakonoff and others have linked to the Mushki).


 * Obviously Diauehi being (at least partially) Indo-European is all speculative though (like almost any information about Diauehi besides the names themselves and their interactions with neighbors). To answer your question about an Indo-Euro presence--Daiuehi is generally believed to mean "land of Daiu(s)" (see Sayce, etc). If I recall correctly, this name was mentioned by the Assyrians and seems to be Indo-European (whether Armenian or something else, I don't know)--but compare it to Dios, Deus, Zeus, day, etc. The theory is that this is related to a sun/light worshipping culture. This is an old theory, actually...there was a book (written by an American or British scholar) who proposed this about 100 years ago. The book was available on Google Books, but I cannot find it now. Also, the name "Asia" could be the Assyrian-rendering of a Balkanic (Greek, Phrygian) or Anatolian Indo-European name. Sien could be Indo-European but this is a little bit more vague than the others. As for Utupurshi--I can only speculate myself, I've never seen any etymologies for this name but Utu is Semitic, not sure about purshi.


 * Since Diauehi probably occupied at least part of the region previously called Hayasa, there being an Indo-European presence isn't totally out of the question, in fact, it seems very possible (Hayasa is usually thought to have had either a Hittite or Armenian population). Preservedmoose (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The only ethnicity known about Diaueha is the names of the Diaueni's kings, and they are Indo-European names. According to this, it makes first possibility theory Indo-European and in this situation also proto-Armenian as Indo-European, because this territory was previously part of the proto-Armenian kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi.

Armenian language Indo-European, but isolated language, not related to any other, as it confirmed now by linguistics studies. The reason is, because it's an interlingua, which first born in between 1600-1200 B.C. among Indo-European tribes and states such as Hayasa, Azzi(Tsuhme), Eastern Luwian states and Mushkian tribes, and then in VII-VI centuries B.C. were spread among Biaina and other Hurrian tribes of the Urartian kingdom.

All of this states and ethnical groups are proto-Armenians, first earliest Indo-European groups in XVI-XII centuries B.C. and then in 7-6 centuries B.C. Hurri-Urartians, as of genetically, culturally and politically.

According to your logic on this subject, for example, Hurrian Kulha(Colhis) is not a proto-Georgian state, because Hurrians is not Kartvelians. Kenech Kermian (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for your claim that the names of Diauehi kings are IE and, also, for the allegation that Kulha was Hurrian? Again, I see the same confusion here. Not all groups that contributed to the X are proto-X as the latter term is usually reserved to the group which carried the language ancestral to X.--KoberTalk 12:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the Kulha/Colchis being called Hurrian, or even that Hurrians were in the region that Colchis was. I do know that the ancient Greeks variously gave the Colchians Greek, Scythian, and Egyptian origins (I'm not saying that I believe any of this personally).Preservedmoose (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kenech Kermian, I support your intention to improve the article, but, would you not want to add info about the Diauehi? Kober and Preservedmoose have done so... They are major contributors to the article. I've done so to a far lesser extent. But I encourage you to add sourced info about the Diauehi, we, in wikipedia would appreciate it. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Paradise Chronicle for your invitation, I will bring situation for my words and new information as much as possible. Have a good one everyone.Kenech Kermian (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for such a delay with more response, I was completely absent from internet virtual world.

But for the conversation, I can add that that theory of who is the proto-ancestors for modern nationalities of the Caucasus, which Kober supported is very shaky. Why? I give example. For two of the modern Georgian ethnic groups, Meskhians(Moschoi) and Misimians(Mushüans,Svans), proto-georgians are not the ancient Kartvelian tribes, but the ancient Indo-European Mushkian tribes, part of which were kartveliazed. Svans(Mushüans, Misimians) even kept Indo-European endings in their last names IANI, identical to Armenian ''IAN", like last names Ioseliani, Kipiani, Ketovani.Kenech Kermian (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Svans have nothing in common with Indo-Europeans, as evidenced by their genetics. 5.152.106.148 (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Leave "History of Armenia" template
Please leave the History of Armenia. The Diauehi were originally a Nairian people (which has been connected to Proto-Armenians and led to Urartu) from Elazig or Mush (both long parts of Armenia) who moved to Kars (also long part a region of Armenia) and then moved to Tao/Tayk (which alternated between Armenian and Georgian control for centuries). All of this is in this article. They are as much a part of the History of Armenia as the History of Georgia. It's also unknown what they spoke. Some of their names seem to have been Indo-European (Diaus). They may have been Kartvelian. They may have been a mixed confederation. This article itself has two sources saying that they may have been Proto-Armenian.Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Request
IP keeps removing History of Armenian template from article, stating that Diauehi was not located in Armenia, and was Georgian. However, article states that 1) Diauehi was in Turkey and 2) may have been Proto-Armenian speaking (i.e. linguistically Armenian). IP refuses discuss issue on Talk page, even though I started a new section to discuss this topic.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  EN  - Jungwon  17:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * EN-Jungwon (talk) Thank you for the response. I reverted the article to how it had been (i.e. with the History of Armenian template in tact). I just would like the article to be semi-protected so that the History of Armenia template, which has been in this article for some time, cannot be removed by an IP. The same IP has attempted to remove this template multiple times this week. So semi-protected status to prevent IPs/non-autoconfirmed users from removing History of Armenian template from the article.Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EN-Jungwon (talk) The same IP that is causing issues in this article caused similar issues in Mushki recently, which caused that page to get semi-protected status last week (March 31). Please see the Revision History page on Mushki here for reference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mushki&action=historySkeptical1800 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection.  Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Diaokhi, Hayk and Origins
"However, they are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus as Xaoi, which Hewsen etymologizes as a Greek form of the Armenian endonym, Hayk'."

What does this information have to do with Diaokhi? Either I ask for an explanation of this or delete it.

Also why did you delete David Marshall's source regarding Diaokhi? 5.152.72.140 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Problems about R. Hewsen and Armenian sources
1. “However, they are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus as Xaoi, which Hewsen etymologizes as a Greek form of the Armenian endonym, Hayk'.[41]”

Hewsen does not write this. He writes that the copyist made a mistake and the correct name was Taokhoi, which was the name of a region in Iberia.

Exact quote from the author: “Taokhoi for the population, erroneously written Khaoi in Diod.unless this is his or a copyist’s false correction on the notion that Xenophon’s Taokhoi should be read Khaoi from Arm.: Hayk’;”

2. “While it is unknown what language(s) they spoke,[14]: 205”; “According to Robert H. Hewsen, they may have been speakers of a language unrelated to any other in the Caucasus region.[40]”

In reality, R.Hewsen is talking about the origin of the name Dayans, not about the language.

Quote from the author: “While it is possible that the Dayans were proto-Caucasians and thus one of the vanguards of the proto-Georgians, their name conforms to no known linguistic root in Caucasia and they may represent a distinct and virtually autochthonous population.”

3. “they may have been speakers of a Armenian,[23][24][25]”

In reality, nowhere in the sources is it mentioned that Armenian was spoken in Diauehi. 185.115.7.107 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Armenisation of Georgian history
I wonder why Armenians trying to Show themselves as local people of Caucasus, deleting sources, first time I checked this article there was mentioned mostly Georgian part who are locals of caucasus, now it shows Armenian. 37.170.48.218 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Falsification of sources?
User:Uchagagnidze24 has said some sources have been falsified and has (apparently) been engaged in an edit war on this issue. I don't know how to react and I am not experienced in any way on this topic, but want to know about what falsification they are talking about.

P.S. Article seems to be WP:REFBOMB'd. Vamsi20 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. “However, they are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus as Xaoi, which Hewsen etymologizes as a Greek form of the Armenian endonym, Hayk'.[41]”
 * Hewsen does not write this. He writes that the copyist made a mistake and the correct name was Taokhoi, which was the name of a region in Iberia.
 * Exact quote from the author: “Taokhoi for the population, erroneously written Khaoi in Diod.unless this is his or a copyist’s false correction on the notion that Xenophon’s Taokhoi should be read Khaoi from Arm.: Hayk’;”
 * 2. “While it is unknown what language(s) they spoke,[14]: 205”; “According to Robert H. Hewsen, they may have been speakers of a language unrelated to any other in the Caucasus region.[40]”
 * In reality, R.Hewsen is talking about the origin of the name Dayans, not about the language.
 * Quote from the author: “While it is possible that the Dayans were proto-Caucasians and thus one of the vanguards of the proto-Georgians, their name conforms to no known linguistic root in Caucasia and they may represent a distinct and virtually autochthonous population.”
 * 3. “they may have been speakers of a Armenian,[23][24][25]”
 * In reality, nowhere in the sources is it mentioned that Armenian was spoken in Diauehi. But these Armenian sources have already been deleted by others and "failed verification" is indicated.
 * All this is written on the talk page in "Problems about R.Hewsen and Armenian sources". Uchagagnidze24 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)