Talk:Carahunge

Reliable sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL this site is probably better known by another name? I cannot find a single academic reference to these names. (Zorakarer, Zorakar, Zorats qarer, Angelakot?) --dab (𒁳) 08:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, the place figures in several travel guides, and is certainly genuine, but there is almost no archaeological literature to be found. The only source I was able to find is a 2000 survey of Munich University, concluding

In contrast to the opinion that Zorakarer may be called an Armenian Stonehenge, an exact investigation of the place yields other results. Zorakarer, located on a rocky promontory, was mainly a necropolis from the Middle Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Enormous stone tombs of these periods can be found within the area. Later, possibly in Hellenistic Roman time it served as a place of refuge in times of war. Close to the high plateau a wall of rocks and loam was built; for reinforcement vertical rocks were plugged into the wall. Of this city wall only the upright standing rocks still remain and are subject of speculation.[1]

--dab (𒁳) 08:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article makes a number of controversial and even staggering claims, none of which are directly referenced. We are told, for instance, that it could be "up to 7,600 years old". Furthermore, "According to scientist’s [who exactly?] findings [published where?], a temple [how do we know?] consisting of 40 stones built in honor of the Armenians’ main God, Ari [and just how do we know that?], meaning the Sun, is situated in the central part of Carahunge. Besides the temple, it had a large and developed observatory [who says?], and also a university that makes up the temple’s wings [oh really?!]." Nobody seems to have thought it worthwhile giving the views of the archaeologists of Munich University (see above), who note that "Close to the high plateau a wall of rocks and loam was built; for reinforcement vertical rocks were plugged into the wall. Of this city wall only the upright standing rocks still remain and are subject of speculation." That speculation seems to form the basis for this article which badly needs the attention of an expert. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All the claims seem to rely on the work of Paris Herouni, specifically his book Armenians and old Armenia, and/or http://www.carahunge.com. (The spelling 'Carahunge' looks to be a deliberate attempt by Herouni to forge a link with 'Stonehenge'). In the mostly unsourced article Paris Herouni there is reference to his having communicated with Gerald Hawkins, who was described in peacock terms until I removed them. References to Carahunge on the web contain other nonsensical claims, such as that Britain was populated by Armenians; and I was led to this article by a recent edit to Armenian alphabet which mentions a controversial claim about the origin of that alphabet, sourced once again from Herouni's book.

I have just removed the spurious linguistic connection with 'Stonehenge' and 'Callanish' ('Stonehenge' has a perfectly good English etymology from the same root as 'hang', in reference to the trilithons), but while I'm satisfied that must of the article is nonsense, that is the only part I feel competent to address. --ColinFine (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Colin. I knew the connection between Stonehenge and Callanish was a load of bull, of course, but at the time I felt that it was best left in just to underline how ludicrous this article is. I left a note calling attention to it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology but it seems nobody is interested (have to ask if there is anyone actually there?!). I was tempted at the time to remove not just the Callanish nonsense but to expunge about 80% of the text. Even though I'm not an expert on Armenian archaeology I know enough about early history to see how spurious and controversial most of these claims are. Now, thanks to your research, we can see were this fantasy comes from. Had to laugh when I read about the claim, above, that the Armenians populated Britain; I drew a colleague's attention to Zorats Karer in a discussion on the sad state of some sub-Roman Britain articles due to information added uncritically from unreliable websites by jokingly referring to a group of rebellious students of the Megalithic State University of Zorats Karer fleeing the repressive regime there and founding an early British kingdom. Seems I was beaten to it: "look forward" to reading the book some day! I've given up on the hope of getting a response from the Archaeology project. I'm tempted to go ahead and cut this down to just a paragraph, even though that's likely to draw an editorial response from the Faithful. Should an edit war ensue, would you back me up? They can be tedious affairs and I've plenty of other things to do but this article really does make a mockery of wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. Enaidmawr (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PS When you say that "Paris Herouni communicated with Gerald Hawkins", I can't help but wondering if that was by some sort of out-of-body experience on the astral plane, channeled through the mystic stones of "Carahunge", perhaps...  ;-) Enaidmawr (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will back you up. But it's important to remember that we cannot delete material just because we disagree with it. I think I'm going to have to try and get hold of Herouni's book, in order to see just what he does say. Well done on your improvements to Paris Herouni: the bit about the communication with Hawkins has the ring of OR, but it is possible that it is repeated from the book. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy that what I deleted was completely unreliable and unreferenced; even if it is to be added again it should be in the Speculation section and kept in proportion to the main article (guideline on that somewhere). Another editor agrees and is going to keep an eye on this as well. The only thing I felt slightly reticent about was the claim that Karagunj or whatever means 'Singing Stones' in Armenian - it wasn't referenced anyway but if it is true perhaps you could reinstate it - or at least give the actual meaning of the names(s)? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know hardly any Armenian. I notice that somebody has added a reference for Herouni's claims that isn't Herouni's book. However, aside from the immediately obvious agenda of the source, any document that describes Hawkins as a "top specialist in megalithic monuments" is, shall we say, open to question. --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi folks. Taking a look at the source provided, it states that Herouni is the "primary researcher of Carahunge" (ie: ZoratsKarer) and that Professor Gerald Hawkins, who is the "top specialist in megalithic monuments" agrees with the interpretation of the site as an "astronomical observatory". He's an astronomer, archaeo-astronomer in fact, who did not appear to have archaeological qualifications and his theories regarding Stonehenge have been slated by Richard J. C. Atkinson. The matter of Zorats Karer being an ancient observatory verges on a fringe theory and needs impeccable referencing, and I don't think the PDF satisfies that. Can the source be used to support the date given for Zorat Karer's construction? Perhaps (although I can only see 2,500 BC, not 5,600 BC; and as an aside it would probably be more useful to say 2,500 BC rather than 4,500 years ago), it appears to be Herouni's theories that are fringe rather than his science but I'd be interested in knowing how the site was dated and who by. Nev1 (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest you use this book by Clive Ruggles, definitely a reliable source, who discusses Carahunge. He questions whether the holes are prehistoric, but says there is a serious possiblity they were used for astronomical purposes (and points out that since few people think Stonehenge was an observatory, it isn't a good comparison). [2]. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a little about the mysterious holes in some of the standing stones leading to speculation about the site's posible use as an observatory as mentioned in Ruggles' book, however he does not mention universities or sun gods. Nev1 (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nev1. I see the IP contributor simply restored a section of the old text, unreferenced, of course. Even if a reference of some sort (Herouni, presumably - it is very unlikely to be from a reputable academic source) can be found for the alleged "university" etc it should be noted under "Speculation", worded appropriately, and weighted per WP:FRINGE, in my humble opinion. Does Ruggle provide any respectable archaeological sources for the site which could be used to expand the description, or at least given in a bibliography? Pity the University of Munich web page doesn't really tell us very much. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He does, in fact he mentions Herouni and this website. But I'm not sure Herouni's terribly reliable, and the website draws parallels with Stonehenge which Ruggles says is unhelpful so I'm not sure how helpful either would be. Ruggles also mentions a chapter by Nickolai Bochkarev in a book called Cultural Context from Archaeoastronomical Data. A quick search in the online catalogues of the libraries near me turns up empty. If stuff about the "university" was to be included it would need to be sourced and put in context as you say. Nev1 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Herouni can be counted as reliable at all. He is not an archaeologist or historian and this is basically his theory. I've no objection to having a brief resume of that theory in the "Speculation" section, if properly sourced, but it shouldn't be included in the site description. Never heard of Bochkarev, but he sounds very much like a friend of Herouni, so to speak. I have a feeling that a romantic interpretation of Armenian history might play a role here as well. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I see that Ruggles' description of the site is remarkably similar to Herouni's and is at odds with the desciption of the German archaeologists (e.g. "no later than 3000 B.C.E."). If he uses Herouni et al. as his source, even critically, I think that means that he himself is of limited use as a source. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

PPS One of the problems with finding refs online is the various spellings of "Carahunge". Hoping to find a site on pseudo-archaeology which debunks Herouni, I came upon this: Karahoonj.com. Here you will find a much fuller account of Herouni's theories, which draw in Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids (as one would expect!). This confirms my belief that this is Loony Bin material even by the standards of pseudo-archaeology. Sorry to sound so harsh, but it's true. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, for your viewing pleasure - well, it's Sunday evening so I need some light entertainment - here's a propaganda video I found on YouTube. Nice pics though; can understand the romance of the site itself. And also, on a closely related note, "Armenians: First People in Britain?". A gem. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

...interesting! I'd like to see what evidence they have for claims such as the Armenians spread kindness throughout the world. How does that register in the archaeological record? The comments on the video were the most entertaining bit. One person got their comment "disliked" by several people because he said "its just spekulation.....the names proof nothing". I think I'll add some photos of the henge, the images were quite impressive although ruined by some bizarre speculation. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I've transferred some picture I found on flickr to commons. They look pretty good and I've added one of a stone with a hole in it (although if anyone thinks the others are better or should be included also as opposed to instead of, feel free to change the article). There are more pictures here that I can upload if people think it's worthwhile. Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. William Shea,(MD, Loma Linda University; Ph.D., University of Michigan) served as medical missionary, seminary professor, and associate director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist and a specialist in ancient languages. Has visited theses sites he began his work in 2004 here is a link on his inital findings.

http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/17_3_shea_e.htm - this article was written in 2005

Thist Letter was written in 2006 08-06

Vigen Khachatryan Bob Spurgeon Gary Cronau Torsten Bertschneider Pietro Copiz Jerry Kitchens Michael Holt

Dear Friends:

I have sent to a few of you a brief e-mail report of our work in Armenia during the early days of August. I thought I might give you a more detailed report and a brief statement of prospects for future Work. We were delayed for a couple of days because of lost luggage and different times for different flights. We finally go into the field on Sunday August 6 when we visited the forest of monoliths at Zorats Karer. I had studied monoliths here during my visit there with Rollin Weber in July of 2004. WE spent our time then with the monoliths, photographing about 60 of them and I have sent you an analysis of those photographs by way of CD [which may be obtained by e-mailing Bill Shea: Shea56080@aol.com]. At that time we studied only one tomb, the central on and determined that it belonged to Shem, the son on Noah. Our visit on August 6 and again on August 8 concentrated on the tombs, we did not pay much attention this time to the monoliths since they had been covered quite adequately on the previous expedition. When we photographed the tomb of Shem in 2004, it looked as if there was another auxiliary Tomb nearby be we did not have time to study it. That is where our work began on August 6 2006. We had supposed that this was the tomb of Shem’s wife and the carved relief’s with labels that we found there this time confirmed that suspicion. There is a long line of tumuli, or piled up tombs above ground that extend in a mostly straight Line back for her tomb. We had time to examine only on of those and found it to belong to Ashur, one of the fives sons of Shem according to the genealogical list in Gen 10. We continued moving along this line until we came to the edge of the plateau. From the edge of the plateau there is a large sloping area that extends downward at a gradual Angle towards the canyon below that surrounds this area. In contrast to the areas above on the plateau, there are no monoliths down below here but there a many more tombs. These tombs are not the tumuli type, they have been dug into the ground and have there entrance covered whit large rocks. On these Rocks there are depiction of the heads and labels in Proto-Sinaitic script, similar to Proto-Sinaitic, that identify the individuals who were buried in each of the tombs. On Sunday morning Aug 6 we had time to examine only three of these tombs. There are tow horizontal lines of tombs that extend across this sloping area. As one stands below looking up at them we started in the upper corner. Much to our surprise we found the label for the qeber or tomb of Adam and Eve. This label was found there on at least for of the large rocks that covered the entrance of the tomb. From this surprise we started along the line and the next tomb found thee was that of Seth, the son of Adam. There is a small entrance road that leads down from the Plateau into this sloping area of the cemetery. Up close to one side of the entrance, but still below it was the third and last tomb that we found on Sunday; it was the tomb of Abel, also a son of Adam. With these three tombs found on the lower slope it was mandatory that we return to the area Again to continue further mapping. This we did on Tuesday Aug. 8. We spent the whole morning there with Bob Spurgeon and Gary Cronau talking the photographs of the progressive order of the Tombs. I have already reviewed the CD with bob Spurgeon’s photos on it and they are sufficiently clear to identify all the tombs in the follow in horizontal line of tombs lower down on the slope. As we continued our documentation of the tombs in this cemetery, we continued to find the Tombs of those antediluvian saints who are mentioned in Gen 5. After Seth and the side tomb of Able who dose not figure in that Genealogy because of his murder. We found the successive tombs of Enosh Cainan, Mahalalel, Yared, a memorial but no tomb for Enoch and then the subsequent tombs of Methuselah and Lamek. The line of these antediluvians ended with Lamek, Noah is NOT listed where with these tombs 9se below). With the memorial site for Enoch the scripts read. “Alah al shamayim”, which translates as, “he went up to heaven” or “who went up to heaven”.

From this point we proceeded to study the second horizontal line of tombs, the line of Tombs farther down the slope. Starting at the far left as you view them from below, they begin whit the tomb of the wife of Abel, Eve is not here as she was buried with her husband Adam. Then the second line of tombs continues through the wife’s of the antediluvian saints are Mentioned in Gen 5. The same list given above, this time with the Wife of Noah is given and there are a final two tombs are listed as the daughters of Lamek and the sons of Lamek. With these the list of the tombs of the antediluvians ends. As we walked from the ends of the second line of tombs up to the plateau we photographed six more tombs. I was not able to identify them in the field but after returning home I have studied there photographs and found them to be the wise of the sons of Shem. He I should interject, That when we went back to the cemetery on Tuesday we began with the line of the tombs/tumuli behind the tomb of the wife of Shem and found them to be, in order , the tombs of Elam, Aram, Ashur and Arpakshad. Four of the five sons of Shem that are mentioned Gen 10. Off, apart form this line of four was the tomb of Lud, the fifth son of Shem and because of lack of time. We photographed it only from a distance. Thus all of the five sons of Shem were buried with Shem and his wife, their father and mother, in the tumuli on the plateau. Their wives are buried on the lower slope in the line of the tombs that curve up toward the plateau from the end of the Second horizontal line of tombs. There was on final tomb in this line up of the wives, a sixth and it now reads in the photograph as belonging to Dudiyah, the daughter of Shem. She evidently never married and thus was buried with her own name, not the name of her husband. In all therefore , we found 33 tombs, 7 on the plateau above and 26 on the slope below In tow horizontal lines, On the plateau above are Shem, the central tomb, his wife in the , in the nearest Auxiliary tomb and his five sons in the line of tumuli extending backwards from the original pair. Down below we have the tow horizontal lines of tombs. The upper line is the males from Gen 5 together at the head of the line of males and Enoch for whom only a memorial not a tomb was found. Noah’s wife is present in the line of women but Noah himself is not present in the Line of men (se below). The line of women is continued after the wife of Noah with the wives of the sons of Shem all five of the them, were found according to the photographs, along with Dudiyah, the unmarried daughter of Shem. The account in Genesis dose not mention that the bodies of the antediluvians were brought over in the Ark for reburial but that obviously is what happened here and the collection of them is complete as far as I can tell from the labels. One of these tombs I don not know which one was excavated in the 1930’s we have been told in the Sisyan museum nearby I am trying to get a hold of those records, especially the photograph. I will let you know when ever I encounter them. The conclusion is, therefore, that the field of megaliths at Zorats Karer, we visited The Tatev monastery where I think according to the stelae in the courtyard, Ham was buried, along with his wife. We found one more stone to that effect on the near slope just out side of the Monastery On the other side. The north side of the Vorotan Canyon we stopped at the over look where I believe that Japheth and his Wife are buried. We found two or three more carved stones to that effect. Our visit to these two sites farther south simply confirmatory from what we found in 2004. We Returned to Yerevan the capital on Tuesday after noon Aug 8. Aug 9 we spent the whole day up on Mt Aragatz. This was the place where I found 7 carved stones at the west end of Lake Qare in 2004. We also found the obelisk on the grounds of the physics institute which suggests to me originally that the antediluvians had been brought over in the ark for reburial. In 2006 we explored to the north slope that leads Down to Lake Qare and found at least a dozen more carvings, most of them in fairly bad Shape. When I visited there in 2004 the mound on the inside of the Ark was under snow, when we visited there in 2006 all of the snow and ice hand melted away. At one time I though that the Ark might be have been buried in this mound, but that clearly is not the case now because in it’s uncovered state it is obviously a volcanic tuff which could not contain the Ark. Puzzling over this turn of events, for a brief time I though that the bead of lake Qare, at 9000 feet or 3000 meters on this Mountain might be been the mold or footprint of the Ark. That is were my ark research Began in 1976, with the ark-shaped formation in the Tnedurek Mountains of eastern turkey. I have never said that I though it contained the Ark., as Ron Wyatt and Bill Fry have said. I Said I thought it might be a mold or foot print of the hull of the Ark. That did not turn out to be the case either. Since returning to the US I found that I made tactical error. Prior to this trip I was laboring under the impression that the antediluvian saints, mentioned on lake Qare Obelisk were buried in the Gehama mountains, In a know that we photographed in 2004. Since we had found the cemetery of the antediluvians I had lost interest in the Gehama Mountains and we did not hike in there as we had originally planned. This was a serious mistake. Since we found the cemetery of the antediluvians at Zorats Karer in the South, I assumed that what was in the Gehama Mountains was a memorial of what happened on Mount Aragatz. Actually the reverse is true, hence our tactical error, because I had the relationship between these to backwards. Since returning to the US I have studying to two main photographs of the Gehama mountains that I have. One is of f the internet taken by William Saroyan. It shows a large seated woman probably quite tall in nature since that photo was taken from Long distance. Se appears to be morning a burial. That much is correct. From time to time I have though the burial was that of Ham, or Noah or Noah’s wife. The correct answer is that this stature is a depiction of Noah’s wife morning the burial of Noah near by. Further study of the inscription on the ledge above her head now reads Qeber Noah B-qeber tebah. This translates as, “the grave is Noah is in the grave of the Ark.” The first half is clear the last half is covered with snow. Could be, “The grave on Noah is in this in this mountain.” For a long time I have puzzled as to what the large flat object on her lap is. No I understand. It is the door of the Ark. That she is closing up after having interred the dead body of her husband within it. In other words, Noah probably requested that he be buried with the Ark. Like Joseph and Jacob who wanted to be buried in the land of Canaan, not Egypt. When they went back there they placed hi body in the Ark and his wife, with the aid of her sons closed the door of the Ark , thus making the grave of Noah in the Ark which he had spent so long a time building and so long a time sailing within. At Zorats Karer We found six Stones below and one up on the plateau which says that Noah was buried at or in the Ark. The Hebrew preposition B is ambiguous as to weather it means “at” or “in”. From the depiction we can see that they mean that he was buried in the Ark. This gives us a clue as to where the ark is for it is where Noah was buried. Conversely, Noah is where the Ark is. Where I s that? This bring up the interpretation of the know on the ridge of the Gehama mountains that was Photographed by Rollin Weber in 2004 going back to this and studying it more I believe that is Give us the location of Noah and the ark. There are two figures here one is a tall standing person on the left and the other is a large head in the middle of the mound. The tall standing person on the left face away to the left, to the left, his mouth is open and he speaks, the word that issues from his mouth is, PHO, the Hebrew word for “here” Below that along the bottom of the scene are the letters Har Ararat. The phrase translates as a show here is Mount Ararat. The end of the word for Ararat is obscured by the mountain ridge in front of the knob. The large head in the center faces to the right. Above him on the right are two birds, one clear and the other faint. The upper clear bird is labeled as Yonah or Dove. The lower bird is labeled “Oreb” or “Raven”, with them is the verb Kanap, to take wing. Below that verb is the wavy waterline from the letter M which is the Hebrew preposition “from” It looks like the following word may be Tebah for the Ark or from ‘here” PHO”. At any rate these two scenes identify this mound as the place. Where those birds were launched and where Mount Ararat (singular) was located. That should mean that the Ark, wheat ever is left of it, should also be here. In Sum, my mistake in the summers expedition was to assume that the inscriptions in the Gehama mountains celebrated what happened on Mount Aragatz when in actuality the inscriptions on Mt. Aragatz celebrated what happened in the Gehama mountains. Unfortunately there are no roads into this part of the Gehama Mountain. That means that we must hike in there to photograph whatever is there if we can locate the positions which show in these two photographs. That is the project for next summer as we continue our study of Noah and Armenia. As far as I personally concerned, our work in southern Armenia is done, what remains to be done is in the Gehama Mountains. East of Yerevan (end)

this letter written in 09-08 Dear Friends,

AFTER THIS SUMMERS’S EXPEDITION I SENT YOU 2 COMMUNICATIONS, THE FIRST SAID THAT I NOW THOUGHT THAT LAKE QARE ON MT ARAGATZ, ITS DEPRESSION WAS MADE BY THE HULL OF THE ARK. THEN I SENT A 2ND SAYIN NO - ‘I THINK IT LANDED IN THE GEHAMAM MTNS. WITH THIS 3RD COMMUNICATION I AM REVETING BACK TO THE INTERPRETATION THAT SAYS IT LANDED AT LAKE QARE ON MT ARAGATZ. I AM DOING THAT BECAUSE INSCRIPTIONS WE PHOTOGRAPHED ON MT ARAGATZ IN AUGUST.

I HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE LAST FEW WEEKS SCANNING AND CATALOGUING THE PHOTOS TAKEN BY BOB + GARY ON FRIDAY 9/22. (HEBREW FALL NY, ROSH HASHANAH) I CAME ACROSS No. 545 TAKEN BY GARY. IT APPEARS TO BE A MAP LOCATING THE PLACE WHERE THE ARK LANDED. IT HAS THE VOLCANIC HILL (HAR MUT.) ON ONE SIDE (NORTH) + WATER ON 3 SIDES (WEST, SOUTH + EAST). THE LETTER T. (HEBREW TETH, NOT TAW) IS ESPECIALLY CLEAR. MUT. IS USED IN HEBREW FOR MOUNTIANS SHANKING IN AN EARTHQUAKE!

THEN ON SUNDAY 9/24 THE SAME DAYS AS NATIONAL GEOGAPHIC SHOWED THERE VIDEO ON THE ARK, I CAME TO THE “NOHA’S ARK STELA” - ALMOST THE LAST THING WE PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE NORTH SLOPE ABOVE LAKE QARE. I KNEW IT WAS IMPORTANT WHEN WE WOUND IT IN THE FIELD, BUT ONLY NOW HAVING WORKED OUT THE DETAILS.

IT SHOWS THE ARK IN THE MIDDLE, NOAH’S FAMILY AROUND THE OUTSIDE + THEN IT SAYS YAS.U M HA-TEBAH M ZCH MAQOM. (THEY WENT OUT FROM THIS PLACE). THAT SHOULDIDENTIFY THIS AREA AS THE LANDING SITE OF THE ARK. IT IS NOT THERE WHOLE IN ONE PIECE. THE QUESTION NOW IS COULD SIDE BAR SONAR DETECT ANY REMNANTS OR TRAQCES OF IT FROM SCANS IN Lake QARE? THAT IS A QUESTION WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS WINTER.

WITH MY BEST REGARDS, BILL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.144.30 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you, Anon. What can I say? It seems that Zorats Karer truly is 'all things to all men'! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cygnus

I have demoted the (one line) that somebody added as a section about the constellation Cygnus to a paragraph in the 'Speculation' section, and added a 'citation needed' tag. But I'm concerned about the illustration. I have altered the caption considerably, and was very much tempted to remove the whole illustation (without a citation it is WP:OR); but I relented and left it in. I have serious doubts about the relevance of that carved stone though: the caption simply asserts that it is a "map of the night sky", and certainly the article Göbekli Tepe - which wasn't linked until I did so - does not support the claim. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

About Paris Herouni and Carahunge

Paris Herouni was a prominent scientist, astrophysicist, inventor, professor and author of several scientific books. His research and the famous book on Carahunge is based on months of site expedition of a scientific research team, results were analyzed in accordance with astronomical precise calculations details of which are published entirely in his book "Armenians and Old Armenia". So far no published analytical objections against the authenticity of Herouni's methods or calculations are known or referenced here and therefore his conclusion according to which Carahunge is the worlds oldest observatory remains in tact. Hovik Mirzakhanian — Preceding comment added by Hovikmir (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Or it might if possibly the most noted archaeostronomer today hadn't disagreed. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the sources available for this article - (one only need to look at the sometimes crazy content of the above Reliable sources talk). Just because every random empty-headed tourist arriving at Karahunj has some preconcieved idea, or idea given to them by their "guide", that what they are seeing is a "7000-year-old observatory" does not mean that this majority opinion is in some way proven. This site has not been properly investigated and nothing has been proven. As to the theory by Stephan Kroll - that the lines of stones are the remains of a wall - this theory too is still an unproven theory. And it is a self-published theory - it just appears as a very brief summary on Kroll's own website. [3] It has not, as far as I am aware, ever been published in a peer-reviewed periodical or any other publication. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Kroll's theory is superficially convincing, and more convincing than the 7000-year-old observatory stuff, and also matches the layout of the stones (acting a barrier cutting off the approach to a peninsula), but it is presented in such a sparse and unexplained way that it is impossible to assess it further. And the "place of refuge" wording he uses is a standard cop-out that archaeologist use to explain-away features they cannot explain (in this case the lack of any settlement behind the supposed "walls"). Nor are the holes in the stones explained, or even mentioned. Nor is how the stone circle was included in this defensive wall. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you know how Herouni calculated the age? I see no reason not to use Kroll, he seems to have the expertise to get past the self-published bit. I've got my eye on something very good in terms of both content and being a solid RS but maybe not obtainable at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we should not use Kroll, just pointing out that his is (to date) a self-published theory that has only appeared on his website. There is some really embarassing content out there on Karahunj, the latest being from a group that is, allegedly, an "Oxford University expedition". For a possible explanation of how the stone circle could have been part of a defensive wall, see this example of a circular structure used as a gateway in a defensive wall: the Arcadian Gate in Messene. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Condition

I see that User:Iamcool2014 has again stated the condition as protected and in good condition. However, the source doesn't seem to actually say this. And 'protected' may just mean it's on a list but nothing has been done physically to protect it. As I've read that it has deteriorated considerably in the last 100 years I'm not sure how it is 'good state'. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying. Please remove the citation or write again 'citation needed' as I am a new editor and do not know much. @Dougweller
I was just wondering if you checked the sources I mentioned. Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamcool2014 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find what you were talking about at first as it was at the top with an odd 'section heading', I've placed it below with a proper one. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the source for the deterioration claim? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested sources

• book: In radiophysicist Paris Herouni's book Armenians and Old Armenia, he has done a research and demonstrates, with the help of German, Russian, and other scientists, that Carahunge is 7500 years old and is the world's oldest observatory. Additionally, in his book are cited the names Zorats Karer and Carenish. Also, there are a lot of maps and information of/about Zorats Karer. Please take the time to read the first 50 pages, it is also interesting and entertaining. In the book also exists about the god Ari.
• In this web site of Andrew Collins, it is written that Carahunge is 7500 years old. ([4])
• In Carahunge's official web site, it is written '7500-year-old Stone Circle in Armenia.'
• In The Megalithic Portal ([5]) is written 'There is also a popular alternative theory that dates it to 5500 BCE based on stellar alignments.'
• In this reportage/programme of CNN is said 'According to [?] expeditions, it can be the oldest observatory of the world having history of 7500 years....' Please watch the video, it contains much useful information. In the video, is shown that in the oldest handwritings of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles is written 'bacomen of armenia.[?]'
• book: Also, in this excerpt of the book 'Before Atlantis: 20 Million of Human and Pre-human Cultures' by Frank Joseph is written '5500 BCE - Armenia's Karahunj Astronomical Observatory Becomes Operational.' Please take a look at http://www.amazon. com/gp/reader/1591431573/ref=sr_1_2?p=S047&keywords=karahunj&ie=UTF8&qid=1408611463&tag=donations09-20
• 2000 survey of Munichen University: [6]
• I copied this part from Nev1: Taking a look at the source provided, it states that Herouni is the "primary researcher of Carahunge" (ie: ZoratsKarer) and that Professor Gerald Hawkins, who is the "top specialist in megalithic monuments" agrees with the interpretation of the site as an "astronomical observatory". He's an astronomer, archaeo-astronomer in fact, who did not appear to have archaeological qualifications and his theories regarding Stonehenge have been slated by Richard J. C. Atkinson.
• Please take a look at [7].
• Please visit [8].
• Salisboury Jounal, [9].
• Bochkarev N.G., Bochkarev Yu.N., Armenian Archaeoastronomical Monuments Carahunge and Metsamor, Report on International Conference on Folklor, Tartu, 2003
• Moreover, in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Armenia, there is a list of reliable sources, among which there is the Wiki Armeniapedia. Please take a look at the article Zorats Karer by clicking here.
• Traveltrends - Karahunj (Carahunge) or Zorats Karer – One of the oldest observatories in the world - [10]
• book: Lonely Planet Georgia, Armenia & Azerbaijan - [11]
• book: Unexplained: Exploring the Mysterious by Sarah A. Shepherd [12]
• book: Le secret des menhirs: Bretagne et d'ailleurs by Jean DANZE [13]
• book: Lost Race of the Giants: The Mystery of Their Culture, Influence, and ... by Patrick Chouinard [14]

Update: added more resources Information: Zorakarer is the German form of Zorats Karer, as in the German language people can combine words.
Disclaimer: I am JUST trying to help Wikipedia. Let's go with the facts. I do not want someone saying bad things about Carahunge because they are English and 'protect' Stonehenge.

If you permit me, I can add information from these sources to the article. We can write that the construction date is disputed, and write 'who thinks what,' as in Stonehenge. (Iamcool2014 (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC))

Quick comment before bed. Andrew Collins is fringe and can't be used, and in any case didn't do research himself but is just repeating what Herouni said. Of course the Armenian government wants to claim it's the oldest in the world. Sure, we could say that they say that but not use it to state it is. (In fact we simply can't say it is, we can only say "so and so believes it to be...." since there is no agreement on its age or whether even it was an observatory. Megalithic Portal gets used a lot but it shouldn't be as it fails WP:RS - it's material is user contributed. Frank Joseph is Frank Collins - fringe, ex-Nazi, believer in Atlantis, no qualifications whatsover. 2 of your sources are blogs and we very rarely use blogs although we do use newspaper blogs sometimes if they have editorial supervision. More later. In any case, I know there is something oing to be published which will be a major authoritative source on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Well, I am sure if the site were under the reign of any country, they would do their best to prove that it's the oldest. But that's... I don't know - it's confusing. I wish I could go there and do researches myself. Anyway, I found more resources on Google Books, please take a look at them. I didn't know about Andrew Collins and Frank Joseph, so thank you for your notice. Additionally, car (in Armenian) means stone (in English). Carahunge is in Armenia. Stonehenge is in English. Don't you thing 'hunge' and 'henge' are similar? Mightn't there be any connections? Hunge in Armenian has a meaning, it is used in other words like 'hamahunge' which means 'sound together, in relation'. I searched for the word 'henge' in English, but it seems it hasn't any meaning. Please do visit this interesting blog and read all the replies. Also, take a look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles at here and search for Armenia. Please let me know what you think. (I read on some websites that the analysations of the DNAs of Armenian people from Syunik and Karabakh and of Welsh and Irish people are very similar. I am a passionate of mythology myself, and the Armenian and Irish mythology are very similar.) Quite interesting. (Iamcool2014 (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC))

Iamcool, I've come across all of the above stuff in chatter on forums, facebook pages, etc. They are simplified versions of the content found in not very (to me anyway) convincing sources like Herouni. There is a problem on Wikipedia that if something is said often enough, and said in enough sources, it becomes "true" as far as Wikipedia goes. So, while an editor who knows about the topic and its background will find the 7500-year-old observatory claim very dubious, it is a fact that an overwhelming number of sources agree with that 7500-year-old observatory claim. Would make for an interesting RfC, except that such a RfC is bound to be ignored. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a fact of life that fringe claims on subjects like this proliferate widely while analysis by the best qualified hardly gets repeated at all if it's not exciting. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stone Age

If it's from c. 7500 BCE, then it should be listed as being from the Stone Age and not the Middle Bronze Age, right? RikkiAaron (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RikkiAaron, you're absolutely right. But you did say 'if', and if you read the article that suggestion is more or less decisively rejected. The source is a self-published book (see WP:SPS - we don't use self-published books except in rare cases and this isn't one of them - and it just quotes Harouni's dating which has been rejected. I've deleted it as the lead is meant to be a summary of the article and that is just a fringe view. Doug Weller (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Investigations

I added an investigation conducted as recently as in 2010 by Oxford University's Astrophysics Department, in England. The Department has organized "Stars and Stones 2010, Oxford University Expedition to Karahunj, Armenia". The venture was officially approved and supported by the Oxford University Expedition Council and Royal Geographical Society. The expedition acknowledged that Zorats Karer "is clearly pointing to the Sun on the summer solstice day" and that this megalithic complex "may be one of the oldest observatories in the world". Why wasn't this important investigation added to the existing text? Does the finding of the Oxford University's Astrophysics Department look less authoritative than certain González-Garcia's hypothesis that the archaeoastronomical claims for the site were untenable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.9.3 (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Stars and Stones 2010" website is here: http://qarahunge.icosmos.co.uk/index.php71.191.9.3 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

There has been no output from this study so far as I can see, and certainly no peer-reviewed publication. And Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph is a terrible source for the results of the expedition, and "Ancient American" is a basically racist journal claiming that everyone visited America, etc.

When there's a peer reviewed publication from the study we can probably use it. It's pretty bad that five years later there isn't one - maybe that's due to disagreements among the team about the results. Doug Weller (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone peer-reviewed César González-Garcia’s publication? The guy doesn’t seem to have qualifications that could remotely match those of radiophysicist and radioastronomer Paris Herouni. Yet, Wikipedia rushed to conclude that investigation by Herouni and his team “led them to the now disputed conclusion that Carahunge is the world’s oldest astronomical observatory”. Well, if it is “disputed”, then common sense suggests that the article must have shown the arguments from both sides. Oxford’s “Stars and Stones 2010” is one of several proponents for an ancient observatory hypothesis. Although, yes, there was no output from their study, their website clearly states in the “Background” section: “The monument has the same orientation as Stonehenge in the UK; it is clearly pointing to the sun on the summer solstice day. These facts make it more interesting to study the monument from the archeo-astronomical point of view.” And, no, it’s not due to disagreements among the team about the results that the result hasn’t yet been published. It is due to difficulties with independent age estimation and with scientifically explaining the connection between Qarahunge and Stonehenge. Frank Collin aka Frank Joseph was brought in because in his published book he makes references to the works of Herouni, astronomer Elma Parsamian, “Stars and Stones 2010”, and renowned English astronomer Gerald Hawkins, who happened to support Herouni’s hypothesis, by the way. Besides, Collin aka Joseph published his book “Before Atlantis” as an independent author. Whether “Ancient American” is a racist magazine or not is thus irrelevant.71.191.9.3 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

Gonzalez-Garcia's article was published in the peer-reviewed Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, which is a collection of articles by authors who have scholarly credentials in the specific fields of archaeo- and ethnoastronomy. A quotation of an unnamed member of an astrophysical research team—even one from Oxford University—does not have the reliability of Gonzalez-Garcia's peer-reviewed article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Professors Paris Herouni and Elma Parsamian’s works on Zorats Karer were also published in peer-reviewed academic journals, such as Reports of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, both in Armenian and Russian languages. Herouni’s 2004 English-language work Armenians and Old Armenia, in which he develops his known astronomical hypothesis about Zorats Karer, received a favorable review from such renowned British-American astronomer and archaeo-astronomer as Gerald Hawkins. A quotation from the official website of the Oxford astrophysical research team is not of an unnamed member. The author is Dr Mihran Vardanyan, a cosmologist with PhD in astrophysics from Oxford University and the head of “Stars and Stones 2010” expedition.71.191.9.3 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

Apologies, it's Frank Collin, not Collins. I'm more than a bit surprised that after five years they are unable to publish anything about the age and any connection with Stonehenge (well, maybe I'm not surprised about that because the possibility of that is extremely unlikely. The fact that Joseph was editor of a racist magazine actually does seem relevant to his reliability, but "Before Atlantis: 20 Million Years of Human and Pre-Human Cultures" is just nonsense.

"20 Million years ago - Humans working with quartzite tools reside at Monte Hermosa, on the north-central coast of Argentina.

+9 MY At Tabic Mountain, in cast-central California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains, a human community manufactures hundreds of well-crafted mortars and pestles.

Followed by a lot more nonsense, of which my favorite is "7500 BCE Mu, the first city, becomes a thriving urban center." Doug Weller (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, Joseph’s book is a published source written in his capacity as independent author. Whether his book is nonsense or not or whether the magazine in which he was editor is racist or not, is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that in Joseph’s book many references to the works of other authors were found that are, actually, relevant to this Wikipedia article. As for the Zorats Karer’ connection with Stonehenge, do you have qualifications to state that the possibility of that is extremely unlikely while criticizing the reliability of experts in the field?71.191.9.3 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

No, the fact his book is published is irrelevant. It fails our criteria as a source - why should we believe anything he says when he subcribes to such nonsense? And he has no academic qualifications. Feel free to challenge this at WP:RSN. Cosmologists are not experts in the field of archaeology, and a comment on a website also fails WP:RS. We need peer reviewed publications or books by archaeologists at the very least. My qualifications are irrelevant, what counts are sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

“Cosmologists are not experts in the field of archaeology”. Thank you. But cosmologists represent a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe. It is from this perspective that Oxford University’s “Stars and Stones 2010” expedition was organized to the archaeological site at Zorats Karer. Thus the inclusion to it of a cosmologist as the head of expedition. Again, Joseph’s account was not brought up so you believe it, but only as a published source containing references to published works of experts in various fields pertinent to Zorats Karer. Whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.9.3 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford "Stars and Stones 2010" expedition seems to be in something of a problem. The expedition's (apparent) web site -- interestingly not at an Oxford University address -- provides no indication of results on its Results page, other than a map of the Carahunge site accompanied by a notice "Results - Coming soon" The description of the project has some revealing insights into the motivation of the investigators (or their sponsors):

"This narrative story will also form an important input into establishing the universal significance of the site as well as its relative condition compared to other better known sites such as Stonehenge. The expedition team hopes this work will inform discussions with the Armenian Government to support a potential World Heritage nomination for the site.

"We strongly believe that our expedition and the documentary movie will boost local and international appreciation of this unique prehistoric monument. Firstly it will attract more tourists to Armenia and secondly it will increase international awareness of the Armenian heritage improving our chances of successful World Heritage application."

This passage makes it clear that their expedition was not focused on "the origin and evolution of the unvierse". Reading between the lines, it appears that we have an instance where a scholar from a marginally related discipline has been recruited to provide evidence of astronomical uses of the site, in order to support elements of the Armenian tourist industry. These mixed motives make one more than a little suspicoious.

It appears, moreover, that not everything went well with the expedition. A group of Armenian scholars claimed that the Oxford University expedition "didn't happen" and accused the expedition leader, Mihran Vardanyan, of "plagiarism and violation of … law". One of the Armenian group, Vachagan Vahradyan, claims to be Chief Scientific Adviser to the Oxford expedition, although his name is not listed on the expedition web page, and that Mihran Vardanyan had been his student.

I don't want to dig any further into this morass, but there is enough confusion about the Oxford "Stars and Stones 2010" expedition that we can reasonably dismiss it as a reliable source until it produces something in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere have I said that their expedition was “focused on the origin and evolution of the universe”. No need to make things up. I said that a cosmologist, representing a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe, was invited to “Stars and Stones 2010” to look at the archaeological site from an angle of its possible astronomical uses. There is also no need to read between the lines and lopsidedly allude that the expedition, which was supported by Oxford University and Royal Geographical Society, was organized solely “in order to support elements of the Armenian tourist industry” in the case where “Stars and Stones 2010” website clearly outlines their goals in the “Main goals and Methods” section, as follows: “The main two goals of our expedition are to create detailed GPS map of the Qarahunge monument and villages/monuments nearby […] to be able to mirror [it] on the night sky [and] prove directly that the people of this prehistoric society had deep understanding of the night sky. […] The expedition will also boost local and global appreciation of the monument as well as development of tourism in the region.”

What is so “suspicious” about supporting elements of Armenia’s tourist industry as the second goal of the expedition? What, English Stonehenge only serves the goal of scientific research and is closed to general public and tourists? And where, may I ask, did the nonsense about the Oxford University expedition that “didn’t happen” come from? “Photos and Videos” section on their website has footage from local news with the expedition head giving an interview on site. You can, pursuant to your policies, dismiss “Stars and Stones 2010” as a reliable source until it produces something in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature, but there is no need to dig up the dirt on it, really, before it produces an outcome.71.191.9.3 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

Actually I'd say it is very important to make the story about the 'expedition' clear. Where did it come from? You should have read the link:

"Karahunj: Armenian Scientists Accuse Oxford Scholar of Plagiarism

The research into Karahunj (alternative spelling: Qarahunge) by a team of Armenian and British scientists in Armenia didn’t happen, since “a non-Armenian youth,” Mihran Vardanyan, who is a post-graduate student at the University of Oxford, wanted to satisfy his ambitions through plagiarism and violation of RA law, said Chief Scientific Adviser of the Stars and Stones 2010 Oxford University Expedition to Karahunj Vachagan Vahradyan, and group members linguistic psychologist Gayane Hovhannisyan and New Generation of Vaspurakan Compatriots’ Union President Marine Vahradyan at a press conference today."

Please read the rest. The website has no credibility at all and it's clear why there was no report - nothing to do with the reasons you claimed. Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The "plagiarism and violation of RA law" allegation is irrelevant in relation to any possible article content on Wikipedia. All these little countries (and big ones like Turkey) have their petty little research permit systems so that the state can firmly control what is said about sites and control what foreign academics say about things in general (for example, the threat of never getting permits was enough to keep all western archaeologists away from ever commenting on Armenian sites in Turkey, far less researching them). The fact that someone does not follow a country's research permit rules or does not defer to locals who have official control over particular sites, is entirely unimportant in relation to what the research actually revealed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the violation of RA law and the points you make about it. Plagiarism raises other issue though - what was plagiarised, how was it used, etc. Anyway there are better reasons for not including the source. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A few other things emerge from further study. According to his home page, Mihran Vardanyan is not yet a PhD but is "a D. Phil. (PhD) student at The University of Oxford in Astrophysics department and am currently in the final year of my D.Phil." This means that in 2010, at the time of the Oxford "Stars & Stones 2010" expedition to Armenia, he was near the beginning of his postgraduate studies. Since this was a research expedition with a PhD student as the Expedition Leader, it is something of a stretch to describe this as "an investigation conducted … by Oxford University's Astrophysics Department."

Let's just let this one die. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there, indeed, has been no output from "Stars and Stones 2010", is a sufficient explanation for not including this investigation in the article. Thank you. Digging out the argy-bargy between the team members is unnecessary. Something like this can happen in any group of people.71.191.9.3 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian

NPOV tag

There are several sources that support the astronomical significance of Carahunge [15]. An admin deletes them to push another POV. The sources should be mentioned in article in a neutral way. Isabekian (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, I've posted this to the editor above, to FTN, and then after the editor was pinged by my FTN post to NPOVN where he's started another discussion.

"Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

"That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

"Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

"I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"::Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought what I wrote was reasonable and gave the edito enough information to rewrite their text, learning in the process. I am not sure that discussing it at "talk" would help as I tried to do just that on their talk page rather than on two article talk pages. Anw now we have 2 boards involved. I did ping them in my FTN post. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

When you're explaining your removal here all the interested users (who watch this page) can answer and discuss. When you write at my talk, editors of Carahunge will not see it. And it is better if you explain your actions before the first revert, not after the second one. Isabekian (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the new text you propose should be added (since the last summary was challenged)? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, E. Parsamian) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) support the view that Caragunge was an important archaeoastronomical site. Two others, I. Simonia and B. Jijelava write that "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance". Isabekian (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought I'd explained the problem with using the Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy that way. That source says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance (but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view). and it also says "While some of the holes could have been used to sight upon the rising of the sun, moon, or bright stars, the origin has not been determined and it is difficult to exclude the possibility that they may be later additions (Ruggles 2005)." @PaleoNeonate: do you agree that if we are going to use the source we need to include the different points of view represented in the source (including those in chapter 127)? Choosing to show only one pov from a source is something that NPOV is meant to prevent. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote mining to give the impression that it's settled would indeed be problematic. —PaleoNeonate – 11:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to point out that the 2010 Oxford whatever it was is discussed in depth above. I still feel we shouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

If you feel we shouldn't use it then let's to not do it. Let's edit here like you feel it. Simonia expresses his view and also mentions a different view. He is a specialist and understands that there are different views (except of his own). You don't understand this. You feel that there is only one view - that it was not an observatory. Isabekian (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. It's clear that there are differing views. My gripe was your using a source that actually made it explicit that there were differing views to put forward in your edit only the one view. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if one reads the current version of article, he/she should think that in modern times (since 2000) there were Herouni with a "theory" and the people who believe there couldn't be a observatory. But the reality is more complicated. There are many other serious scientists who suppose/admit (as you like it) that there could by an astronomical significance too. We should represent these views too. Until now a part of specialists suppose that Carahunge had an astronomical significance too. Isabekian (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(←) The two articles in the Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy have different focus. The Simonia and Jijeleva article is an overview of astronomy in the ancient Caucasus, which briefly treats Carahnge (Zorats Karer) in this broader context. The authors do not provide a detailed analysis of the site, citing only the problematic Oxford expedition for recent evidence that the monument "was aligned to the rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." They do not provide the detailed mathematical analysis that Gonzalez Garcia does in his Critical Assessment of Carahunge, which finds that meaningful results can only be obtained by assuming an observational precision of the holes in the monument much greater than that which the holes themselves make possible. Given the existence of the Simonia and Jijeleva article ib a reliable source, I will add a brief discussion of it to the article.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that the recent editing interest in this page is probably derived from the findings of a recent archaeological excavation on the site. The head of the excavations, Ashot Piliposyan, has been giving interviews saying the results disprove the observatory theory. Based on the photos I've seen, the newly exposed remains indicate that the standing stones are indeed part of a defensive wall. Armenian nationalist extremists have been calling the archaeologists involved "traitors to the Armenian nation" (plus racial insults questioning their ethnic origin) and have called for their arrest. This is because their findings have finally disproved the "observatory" nonsense (apparently those nationalists believe this damages Armenia's reputation as an early center of civilization - they have started a Facebook page "Save Carahunge", and a petition to the Armenian government on Change.org). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.116.255 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References