96 replies to this topic

[Twilight Bark]

Some review.

- In Behistunian Incription (520 BC) Daruis Ist metions the Satrap of Armina Kingdom.
- In "Anabsis" and "Kyuropaedia" (400 BC) Xenophone describes in details the well organised Armenian state with its kings Orontes (Yervand) and Tigran. He metions that the people of that country (between lake Urmia to Northern Euphrates) spoke a single language.
- During the conquests of Alexander the Great (approx. 320-300) Armenia was already a significant player in the region.
- 189 BC is the start of the Artashesian dynasty.
- 75 - 55 BC Armenian kingdom at it zenith

How much did it took the Romans to develop into an organised state? 300 years (approx. 700 - 400 BC)
How much did it took the Persians? 300 years (approx. 800 - 500 BC)
Greeks had the same timeline. And it's story with each and every civilization of that times.

If Armenia was already an organised state by 520, BC it clearly existed some 300 years back.

Dear ArmenSarq,

First, let me say a belated "welcome to HyeForum".

There is a problem with your timeline, which is cited often. It equates the beginning of the Hye nation to when the foreign powers named us, instead of the time when we named ourselves. This is understandable since the preceding Urartu state dominating Eastern Anatolia and the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia was non-Armenian. So our historians wait until the devastated Urartu people assimilate into the Hye nation spreading eastward and "meet" the Persians as a "new" people. That is understandable, but inaccurate. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the Hittite client-kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi as the proper beginning of a coherent "Hye Azq". And they existed at least as early as 1350 BC, making our real beginnings at least 800 years earlier than the usually recited date.

If, by some historical accident, the little piece of historical Armenia we have left today were situated in northeastern Anatolia, closer to the Hittite heartland instead of south Caucasus, our historians would probably take Hayasa more seriously and put it in its rightful place as our proper starting point. Today's reality seems to shape our "past" retroactively.

Twilight Bark

[Teutonic Knight]

Dear ArmenSarq,

First, let me say a belated "welcome to HyeForum".

There is a problem with your timeline, which is cited often.  It equates the beginning of the Hye nation to when the foreign powers named us, instead of the time when we named ourselves.  This is understandable since the preceding Urartu state dominating Eastern Anatolia and the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia was non-Armenian.  So our historians wait until the devastated Urartu people assimilate into the Hye nation spreading eastward and "meet" the Persians as a "new" people.  That is understandable, but inaccurate.  There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the Hittite client-kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi as the proper beginning of a coherent "Hye Azq".  And they existed at least as early as 1350 BC, making our real beginnings at least 800 years earlier than the usually recited date.

If, by some historical accident, the little piece of historical Armenia we have left today were situated in northeastern Anatolia, closer to the Hittite heartland instead of south Caucasus, our historians would probably take Hayasa more seriously and put it in its rightful place as our proper starting point.  Today's reality seems to shape our "past" retroactively.

Twilight Bark

That's a good point.
I have to remind people constantly that:
a) Armenians are not "Caucasian/Kavkaz" people.
Caucasian armenia is less tahn 10% of actual Armenia.

We need to work on the timeline and go even further back than 1350 BC.

Since Greek history starts from Mycaeneans and Minoans with proto-Greeks going even further back we can starts Armenian history with Metsamor!

9,000 B.C., the world’s first fortified cities, ramparts and round-shaped military towers are erected in Metsamor in ancient Armenia.

In 6,000 B.C., Armenia as a nation was first settled by the Thracian-Phrygian tribes that crossed in Anatolia from the Balkans.

Early 5,000 B.C., the first technologically urbanized Armenian city is born, thanks to the advanced knowledge and mastery of metallurgy, mining of precious stones, gems, gold, silver and magnesium, and metal work (bronze and copper).

Beginning of 5,000 B.C., ancient Armenian cities are equipped with advanced irrigation systems and houses are supplied with running water through stone pipes in Dari Blur, Aratashen Blur, Ada Blur and Teghut.

5,000 B.C., Armenians in the city of Shengavit create the world’s first round shaped dwellings made out of mud brick, river stones and pottery. Many centuries later, the Armenians will teach the Minoans (mistakenly considered as to be the world’s first and best pottery makers and designers!) the secret of their craft. In fact, the Armenians were the ancient world’s first and best pottery makers and designers

In 4,200 B.C., in Metsamor, Armenians create the world’s first navigation system with accurate distances, latitude and longitude measurements, graphs and symbols, as well as topography and mapping systems and tools to map the sky and the stars. In Sissian, the world’s first astrological observatory is built from carved stones, thousands of years ahead of the Babylonians, Egyptians and other great ancient civilizations.

In 4,000 B.C., Armenia began mining metals.

Around 3,000 B.C., the Hayasa-Azzi tribes first inhabit Urartu.

3,000 B.C., in the Armenian cities of Voski Blur, MokhraBlur, Kosh, Lejapi Blur and Jerahovit, Armenians become the world’s first astronomers to find that the earth was round, to build n observatory, to create an astrological calendar dividing the year into 12 partitions of time and to devise the compass.

The Patriarchs and their Epochs

2,350 – 1,700 B. C.

Hayg. Armenag. Aramais. Amassia. Gegham. Harma. Aram.

1,770 – 1,440 B. C.

Ara Keghetzig. Ara Kardos. Anoushavan. Paret. Arbag. Zaven. Varnas. Sour. Havanagk.

1,400 – 1,200 B. C.

Vashtak. Haikak. Ampak. Arnak. Shavarsh. Norir. Vestam. Kar. Gorak. Hrant. Endzak. Geghak.

1,200 - 800 B. C.

Horo. Zarmeir. Perch. Arboon. Hoy. Houssak. Kipak. Skaiordi.




THE EARLY ARMENIAN SETTLEMENTS
1,250 B. C.

Arrival of the Armeno-Phrygians in Thrace. Crossing of the Bosphorus by the Armeno-Phrygians in Phrygia

1,000 B .C.

Settlement of the Armeno-Phrygians in Phrygia

Around 1,000 B.C., the Phyrgians and the Thracians immigrate to Urartu. The Urarturians conquer and overrun the majority of the lands of the mighty empire of Assyria.



Around 934-935 B.C., Assyria regains and captures the lands lost to the Urarturians.



In 860 B.C., Aramu becomes the first king of Urartu.



800 B. C.

The Armenians separate from the Phrygians.



RULERS AND DYNASTIES: CHRONOLOGY
KINGDOM OF URARTU (The First Armenian Kingdom)

860-843: Arameh
835-820: Sarduris I
820-800: Ispunis
800-780: Menuas I

In 782 B. C., at Erebuni, King Argishti the first erects the first Armenian royal capital.


780-755: Arkisdis I
755-730: Sarduris II

In 760 B .C., king Sarduri the second annexes northern Syria.



The year 735 B. C. marks the beginning of the Assyrian incursions in the kingdom of Urartu.


730-714: Russas I
714-680: Arkisdis II

The year 707 B.C. marks the beginning of the multiple attacks of Cimmerians on Urartu.


680-675 : Russas II
675-670 : Yeremenas
670-645 : Russas III
645-620 : Sarduris III
620-600 : Irgias

In 590 B.C., the Uraturian capital Rusahinili is decimated and completed destroyed by Medes. In that year, Urartu is sacked, burned and totally ruined. The Uraturian kingdom begins to fall and declines and never to rise again.



In 585 B.C., Urartu is totally annihilated by the Scythians.

600-580: Menuas II

ORONTID DYNASTY
Ervanduni

401-344: Ervand I
344-331: Ervand II
331-317: Mithranes
317-260: Ervand III
260-228: Samus
228-212: Xerxes
212-200: Ervand IV

ARTAXIAD DYNASTY
Artashesian

190-159 B .C. : Artaxias or Asrtashes I
159-149 B. C. : Artavazd I
149-123 B. C. : Tigran I
94-54 B .C. : Tigran II, the Great
55-34 B. C. : Artavazd II
34-31 B. C. : Alexander
30-20 B. C. : Artashes II
20 B.C. - 8 A. D. : Tigran III
8-5 B. C. : Tigran IV
8-5 B. C. : Erato
5-2 B. C. : Artavazd III
2-1 B. C. : Tigran IV . 2-1 B.C. : Erato

REIGN OF FOREIGN RULERS AND KINGS
ANNI DOMINI

2-4 A. D. : Ariobarzan
4-6 : Artavazd IV
6-14 : Tigran V
14-15 : Erato
16-17 : Vonon
18-34 : Artashes III
34-35 : Arshak I
35-37 : Mithridates
37-47 : Transitional Period
47-51 : Mithridates
51-53 : Hradamizd



ARSACID DYNASTY
Arshakuni

52-59 : Trdat I
60-61 : Tigran VI
66-75 : Trdat I
75-100 : Sanadroog
100-113 : Asxadar
113-114 : Parthamasiris
116-117 : Parthamaspates
117-140 : Vagharsh I
140-162 : Sohemus
162-163 : Pacorus
164-185 : Sohemus
185-190 : Vagharsh II
190-216 : Khosrov I
216-238 : Khosrov II

KINGS OF CHRISTIAN ARMENIA

331-339 : Khosrov III
340-350 : Tiran
350-367 : Arshak II
367-374 : Pap
374-378 : Varazdat
378-389 : Arshak III
378-386 : Vagharshak

387 A. D. - Repartition of Armenia between the Persian empire and the Roman empire

385-387 : Khosrov IV
387-414 : Vramshapuh

406 A. D. - Invention of the Armenian alphabet

415 : Khosrov IV
416-428 : Shahpur

423-428 : Artashes
428 A. D. The end of the Arsacid Dynasty.

The Persian Empire Rules Armenia
From 403 To 634
Thirty five Governors General Persians and Armenians (Marzpans, similar to the Turkish Mohafezs) rule Armenia.

387-451 : Vartan Mamigonian
June 2, 451 A. D. : The Decisive Battle of Avarair

454 : Ghevontiank Martyrized
464 : Return of Vahan, Vasak & Ardashes
480-510 : Vahan Mamigonian

510-564 : Vart Mamigonian

564-642:Armenia divided between Persian Empire and Eastern Roman Empire

604: Famous Battles of Kayl Vahan



652: Fall of the Persian Empire



The Arabs Rule Armenia

From 640 A. D. To 851 A. D.



INDEPENDENT RULE OF ARMENIA BY ARMENIANS
BAGRATID DYNASTY

885-890: Ashot I
890-914: Sembat I
914-929: Ashot II
921: Ashot
929-953: Abas
953-977: Ashot III
977-989: Sembat II
989-1020: Gagik I
1,020-1,042: Sembat III
1,020-1,042: Ashot IV
1,042-1,045: Gagik

BYZANTINE RULES ARMENIA
From ,1045 To 1,064





THE THREE KINGDOMS OF ARMENIA



KINGDOM OF VASPURAKAN
Ardzruni

914-937: Katchik-Gagik
937-953: Derenik-Ashot
953-972: Abousahl-Hamazasp
972-983: Ashot-Sahak
983-1,003: Gourgen-Khatchik
1,003: Seneqerim-Hovannes
1,027-1,037: David
1037-1,080: Atom
1037-1,080: Abousahl



KINGDOM OF KARS

962-984: Mushegh
984-989: Abas
1,029-1,064: Gagik



KINGDOM OF ARMENIAN ALBENIA


1,046-1,082: Koriké



THE GREAT KINGDOM OF CILICIA-1080
Complete Armenian Autonomy

THE ROUPENIN DYNASTY

1,080-1,095: Rupen I
1,095-1,099: Constantine I

1,095-1,099: The Crusaders enter Armenia


1,099-1,129: Theros I
1,129-1,137: Levon I

The Byzantines Rule Armenia for a Short Time from 1,137 to 1,145


1,145-1,169: Thoros II
1,170-1,175: Mleh
1175-1187: Rupen II
1187-1196: Levon II

1,196/1,199: THE BEGINNING OF THE ROYAL RULE: ARMENIA IS RULED BY RECOGNIZED AND UNIFIED KINGS AND QUEENS



1,196-,1219: Levon I, the First Official King crowned in 1,199
1,219-1,252: Queen Zabel
1,222-1,225: Philip



THE HETOUMIAN DYNASTY

1,226-1,270: Hetoum I
1,270-1,289: Levon II
1,289-1,297: Hetoum II
1,293-1,295: Thoros
1,296-1,298: Sembat
1,298-1,299: Constantin I
1,301-1,307: Leon III
1,308-1,320:Oshin
1,320-1,342: Levon V



THE LUSIGNAN DYNASTY

1,342-1344 : Guy de Lusignan or Constantin II
1,344-1,363 : Constantin III
1,363-1,365 : Leon IV
1,365-1,373 : Constantin IV
1,374-1,375 : Leon VI

THE END OF THE GREAT CILICIAN KINGDOM



ARMENIA DARK CENTURIES OF POVERTY AND ART AND CULTURE DECADENCE INFLICTED BY FOREIGN DOMINATIONS

[Armen]

Dear ArmenSarq,

First, let me say a belated "welcome to HyeForum".

There is a problem with your timeline, which is cited often. It equates the beginning of the Hye nation to when the foreign powers named us, instead of the time when we named ourselves. This is understandable since the preceding Urartu state dominating Eastern Anatolia and the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia was non-Armenian. So our historians wait until the devastated Urartu people assimilate into the Hye nation spreading eastward and "meet" the Persians as a "new" people. That is understandable, but inaccurate. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the Hittite client-kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi as the proper beginning of a coherent "Hye Azq". And they existed at least as early as 1350 BC, making our real beginnings at least 800 years earlier than the usually recited date.

If, by some historical accident, the little piece of historical Armenia we have left today were situated in northeastern Anatolia, closer to the Hittite heartland instead of south Caucasus, our historians would probably take Hayasa more seriously and put it in its rightful place as our proper starting point. Today's reality seems to shape our "past" retroactively.

Twilight Bark

Dear Twilight Bark,

Thanks for the welcome. 1350 BC eh? Impressive I'm all for it.

On a more serious note. I do not believe any study about Urartu. It's all false and made up. We don't have any significant information about them, apart from the Hurrian letters they used in their inscribtions.

I think that "The state of Urartu" theory was intentionally developed to conceal, mutate, undermine and make controverisal the existence of the Ararat kingdom.

Actually, do you know what are the main sources on Urartu?

I not prepared for discussion on Hayassa, so for the time being I agree.

Thanks,
A.

[hagopn]

.... 520 b.c, at Behisitun is NOT the first concrete inscription of the Armenia(n) name!

We can skip to the 8th century b.c. with the Assyrian library unearthed at Nineveh, that which was at least maintained if not originally commissioned by Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria!

We can skip further back than that all the way to the 23rd century with Naram-Suwen's stellate south of Amida/Diyarbekir.

As someone mentioned, Metzamor has clearly Armenian features to it. It would be like refusing to acknowledge the entire symbology that Armenians have continually adopted, that they still continue to traditionally utilize in their artisanr and architectural motifs.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Twilight Bark]

...520 b.c, at Behisitun is NOT the first concrete inscription of the Armenia(n) name!

We can skip to the 8th century b.c. with the Assyrian library unearthed at Nineveh, that which was at least maintained if not originally commissioned by Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria! 

We can skip further back than that all the way to the 23rd century with Naram-Suwen's stellate south of Amida/Diyarbekir. 

As someone mentioned, Metzamor has clearly Armenian features to it.  It would be like refusing to acknowledge the entire symbology that Armenians have continually adopted, that they still continue to traditionally utilize in their artisanr and architectural motifs. 

Dear Hagop,
Welcome again to Hye Forum. You will find that in this forum it is relatively easy to have open-minded discussions based on reason and some knowledge. Please ...invite your fellow armenians to discuss topics that your are passionate about. I hope you stay this time and give yourself the chance to air your thoughts.
TB

P.S. Have you had Jensen's book translated from German yet? If so, it would be wonderful if you could share with us parts of it.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

First of all, ignoring evidence is a breach of proper conduct, but that is what revisionists do best. Armenians are among the worst victms of this phenomenon. I would suggest you address that as well. Dishonesty should not be equated with "open-mindedness."

As with everything else, translations are not easy to accomplish. A copy of it is in possession of a friend who studies the Hittite Dictionary publsihed by the Unviersity of Chicago. The translation was partly done in 1999, but the project was stopped short due to a tragic event.

There are 3 interesting points to make about this University of Chicago:

1. It is an institution that is constantly accused of collaboration with the Illuminati by numerous authors on the Internet (and even the most outlandish sounding theory has its basis in some empirical analysis). It is in fact interesting that the University of Chigago does house revisionists: Ronald Grigor Suny, for example, is a very accomplished revisionist, and his latest "instant" 44 page rebuttal to Armen Aivazian, which is a concoction of imperialistic biases presented as "objectivity," is an amazing piece of work designed to discredit the entire notion of Armenian nationalism prior to the "soviet satrapization."

2. The University of Chicago apparently refuses to publish all logograms, word roots, and complex words (many probably proper names) in Hittite that start with the letter A (in phonetic transliteration). Is the name "Armen" mentioned too often, perhaps?

3. the University of Chicago has concentrated all study of Hittites onto its own campus or "closely guarded" (as described by an academic friend) affiliates. There are only two part time academics, both married women with children in Armenia, who are "professionally involved" in HIttite research. In essence, we depend on the "objective and apolitical" (sic) staff at the University of Chicago to present us with the evidence on the Hittites.

Edited by hagopn, 25 November 2003 - 01:44 AM.

[Twilight Bark]

First of all, ignoring evidence is a breach of proper conduct, but that is what revisionists do best. Armenians are among the worst victms of this phenomenon. I would suggest you address that as well. Dishonesty should not be equated with "open-mindedness."

I don't know if you are referring to me here or not. In any case, if there is important evidence lacking in this discussion (which I don't doubt), presenting what you think are the missing facts would be helpful for those interested. I don't know about others, but you can count me among the "friendly audience".

[Twilight Bark]

There are 3 interesting points to make about this University of Chicago:

1. It is an institution that is constantly accused of collaboration with the Illuminati by numerous authors on the Internet. It is in fact interesting that the University of Chigago does house revisionists: Ronald Grigor Suny, for example, is a very accomplished revisionist, and his latest "instant" 44 page rebuttal to Armen Aivazian, which is a concoction of imperialistic biases presented as "objectivity," is an amazing piece of work designed to discredit the entire notion of Armenian nationalism prior to the "soviet satrapization."

2. The University of Chicago apparently refuses to publish all logograms, word roots, and complex words (many probably proper names) in Hittite that start with the latter A (in phonetic transliteration). Is the name "Armen" mentioned too often, perhaps?

3. the University of Chicago is concentrated all study of Hittites onto its own campus or "closely guarded" (as described by an academic friend) affiliates. There are only two part time academics, both married women with children in Armenia, who are "professionally involved" in HIttite research. In essence, we depend on the "objective and apolitical" (sic) staff at the University of Chicago to present us with the evidence on the Hittites.

I have to confess that I don't know much about the "politics" involved. I would not be surprised. I have sasid before that Armenians themselves often butcher their own history because of cultural complexes.

As for University of Chicago, I wouldn't be much surprised about their bias. In an earlier life, I spotted a sentence on their web site referring to Urartu as an "ancient Turkish kingdom", which got corrected pretty quickly when a bunch of e-mails reminded them that at least some people were watching them. Considering how much historical resources Turkey possesses, and given the careerism of academics, it is not a huge surprise to see them try to please their precious "source" at the expense of those insignificant pesky Armenians.

[hagopn]

I beg to differ only on one point for now:

Armenians are anything but "insignificant," and that մակդիր of "insignificant nation" is also the wet dream of wishful imperialists. At the turn of the century Armenians were able to amass an estimated 300,000 on both the ottoman and the russian frontiers. We are as of yet not "insignificant," or at least, not yet. However, at this pace of ideological and, thus, psychological suicide headed by our own "career Armenologists" at the employ of the "global order," we are well on our way to assimilate out of existence. We might even "hypothesize" ourselves out of existence.

Consider that the "elite" who shape the national psyche are now adopting (or have been adopting) a fatalistic and defeatist mindset. Our "balanced" foreign "friends" are also privy to this, at least those who keep on feeding us the faulty "migration theory" based on the Azero-sponsored meanderings of Diakonov and Pyatrovski on the "Urartu" concoction(historian Artak Movsesian has mentioned a few public instances where Diakonov has openly supported the Azeris in matters of historical revisionism.)

Edited by hagopn, 22 November 2003 - 02:40 PM.

[hagopn]

I don't know if you are referring to me here or not.  In any case, if there is important evidence lacking in this discussion (which I don't doubt), presenting what you think are the missing facts would be helpful for those interested.  I don't know about others, but you can count me among the "friendly audience".

I have not read your posts, but there are a few who enthusiastically" keep on repeating ad nauseam, despite solid and informative objections to the contrary that "there were no Armenians before 520 b.c.!"

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

Some review.

- In Behistunian Incription (520 BC) Daruis Ist metions the Satrap of Armina Kingdom.
- In "Anabsis" and "Kyuropaedia" (400 BC) Xenophone describes in details the well organised Armenian state with its kings Orontes (Yervand) and Tigran. He metions that the people of that country (between lake Urmia to Northern Euphrates) spoke a single language.
- During the conquests of Alexander the Great (approx. 320-300) Armenia was already a significant player in the region.
- 189 BC is the start of the Artashesian dynasty.
- 75 - 55 BC Armenian kingdom at it zenith

How much did it took the Romans to develop into an organised state? 300 years (approx. 700 - 400 BC)
How much did it took the Persians? 300 years (approx. 800 - 500 BC)
Greeks had the same timeline. And it's story with each and every civilization of that times.

If Armenia was already an organised state by 520, BC it clearly existed some 300 years back.

Dear ArmenSarq,

First, let me say a belated "welcome to HyeForum".

There is a problem with your timeline, which is cited often. It equates the beginning of the Hye nation to when the foreign powers named us, instead of the time when we named ourselves. This is understandable since the preceding Urartu state dominating Eastern Anatolia and the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia was non-Armenian. So our historians wait until the devastated Urartu people assimilate into the Hye nation spreading eastward and "meet" the Persians as a "new" people. That is understandable, but inaccurate. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the Hittite client-kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi as the proper beginning of a coherent "Hye Azq". And they existed at least as early as 1350 BC, making our real beginnings at least 800 years earlier than the usually recited date.

If, by some historical accident, the little piece of historical Armenia we have left today were situated in northeastern Anatolia, closer to the Hittite heartland instead of south Caucasus, our historians would probably take Hayasa more seriously and put it in its rightful place as our proper starting point. Today's reality seems to shape our "past" retroactively.

Twilight Bark

First of all, the "acceptance" of the Hayassa/Khayassa name as a form of Hay was the work of the pupil of Berich Hrozny, Nshan Martirossyan when the latter was studying under the former in Prague. Martirossyan was "puzzled" as to why his professor was so "adamantly and illogically against the acceptance of this obvious cognate."

Well, dear friends, you think of it for yourselves as much as you please. My conclusion on the matter is that there are "interests" old and new, racial, imperial, sectarian, as well as financial, that would love to see the Armenian nation either permanently crippled and provincialized or entire off the map.

Did it occur to anyone that the name "Hayassa" (assuming that the cuneiform suffix was deciphered correctly) was used by the Hittites? Has it also not occurred to anyone that only Armenians use the name "Hay" to denote an Armenian entity? Why, then, would teh Hittites use the Hay prefix to identify (fellow?) Armenians?

As the matter of fact, Jensen makes this precise assumption, and that is why Jensen is shut out of current academic discussion on this topic.

[MJ]

While lacking adequate credentials for making professional and academic judgments on the academic subject of Urartu, Hittites, etc, I’d like to make some comments about some late methods and methodologies used in this thread.

On one hand we have a very well known and recognized professional (Ronald Suny), who has allegedly written something “on 44 pages.” There is also another known professional historian (Armen Aivazyan) whom he has “rebuttaled.” The readers of this forum know neither what Aivazyan has written about nor what Suny has argued. We also have a new and anonymous member in this forum of with credentials on the subject no one knows about (I presume), who makes some claims which constitute nothing but character assassination. Furthermore, he provides no arguments to support his point of view but makes basically charges on a pseudo-political level, such as Dyakonov has taken a pro-Azeri stance “on some other issues,” which may or may not have any relevance to the subject of current discussion.

Then, someone else is alleged to have done something (which we don’t know anything about) for being a “politically motivated” scholar or a “careerist,” basically a “sell-out.”

Furthermore, whenever I hear criticism about “revisionism” in history, it raises some red flags with me. Are we to understand that subjecting a particular narration of a specific historic topic written by someone in the past cannot be subjected to revisionism? How is it that even in more precise sciences people renew their views on established theories and update them as they learn more, but in the discipline of history such an “ism” is abomination? Why cannot certain views on history be revised, if I may ask?

[hagopn]

Revision and distortion are mutually inclusive when the systematized exclusion of key evidence is at the core of the methodology. This is in fact what I have repeatedly stated.

The readers on this forum are free to substantiate claims made: Go search on the Internet. The information is freely available on all instances with the exception of the comments made by Movsesian. For that purpose, review a telecast of his interview made in Armenia on the Vardanank program.

As to "red flags," yes the "red flag" has much to do with the distortion of Armenian history. As the matter of fact, the "red flag" behind the "iron curtain" is what has enabled the distorted versions of our history to go on unabated and uncontested for such a duration as to, ironically, "raise eyebrows" among dogmatized "establishmentarian" academics whenever objections to their fraudulent methods occur.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Edited by Sasun, 25 November 2003 - 09:54 PM.

[hagopn]

CONSPIRACY:

There is no need to debate about any "possibility" of conspiracy among cognizant adults.

Conspiracy is the most integral part of any political endeavor, and especially if the ambitions are of global proportions, then the protagonists of any such ambition will conspire to reach their goals.

If anyone knows of a general who does not keep secrets and does not "conspire" prior to and during a campaign, then I would like to have his name. If you have one at hand, then he probably did not make it to the history books due to having scored no victory.

Political discussions are not for children. They are for adults ready to swallow the bitter reality of, yes, deceptions, subversions, and, yes, conspiracies.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Edited by Sasun, 25 November 2003 - 09:58 PM.

[hagopn]

So far, as is typical of the "retractors" of the critical position of today's ridiculously distortionist "establishment" Armenologist, no one makes issue of the actual issue.

As was the "response" to Armen Aivazian by Levon Avdoyan, the response type will invariably be in the form of non-factual "character defamation." Levon also did not have the "heart" (probably the evidence) to seriously provide us a counter-critical viewpoint based on facts. It seems neither do our self-appointed commissars.

By the way, there was a stinging critical review of Levon Avdoyan's prepostrous "response" to Armen Aivazian written by Eddie Arnavoudian and published on Groong. I will post it here if he gives me permission.

Needless to say, the "established" mindset based on distortionist dogmas beset by revisionist (or, should I say, "evidence omissionist") "icons of Armenology" is alive and well. But what is even more disturbing is that genuine attempts to cricise this seriously anti-intellectual status quo are treated with utter contempt by self-appointed "westernized empiricist supremacists" on this humble forum as well.

One small exercise of true re-examination of evidence, and we shall hopefully see who can actually contribute:

1. PROVE IT that the Urartu/Urashtu/Arminia/Harminuap mentioned on the Behisitun rock are in reference to "differing" kingdoms. CLUE: The overwhelming consensus among HONEST and NON_POLITICIZED academics is that Urashtu/Urarty, Arminia, and Harminuap are one and the same political (or perhaps geographic) entity/region. The name Armenia and Urartu or its variants are NOT mentioned together in any of the xxxx languages on the Behisitun rock.

1b. Can you tell me how many and which languages those were used on the inscription at Behisitun? (response in private please.)

1c. Can you tell me which forms were used by which language? (response in private please.)

Edited by hagopn, 22 November 2003 - 07:13 PM.

[DominO]

... there is two Steves, this one here is the author of the virtual Ani site, there is another that was one of the buzz at the Armenian diaspora forum.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

I just made an interesting addition to my library:

Historian from Armenia, Artak Movsesian, recently published a book entitled _Նախամաշտոցյան Հայաստանի Գրային Համակարգերը_ ("The Pre-Mashtotsian Systems of Writing in Armenia"). I am still in teh process of digesting this book. I will let you chaps know what it's about.

There is another interesting scholar (physicist) named Karen Tokhatian (Կարեն Թոխաթյան) who had researched the rock carvings of the entire region spanning from Armenia and Northern Iran to the Balkan Peninsula. A fascinating point was made by Mr. Tokhatian during an interview on television last summer: i.e. Armenia is the land with the highest density of rock carvings. He also showed the richness and variety of themes to be unsurpassed by anywhere outside Armenia.

The conclusion still stands that Armenians are primordial in their ethnogenesis. Their modern "national" ethos was formed on that land, although it is impossible to pinpoint beyond the 23rd century when this maturation into a coherent culture took place. It is evident, by all contemporary accounts, that the entire land of the "Subartu" was populated by federated and monocultural tribes. They were all described with the same attributes by their boastful foes. It is hihgly doubtful that they were of Caucasian origins. It is more likely, as Vyacheslav Ivanov states, to be from the shores of Van lake and vicinity. Gavoukjian also proves this with his extensive work in comparing the Sumerian lexicon with the Armenian, and his argument is well made that those mentioned as "Subari" were the very Armenians in constant contact with the Sumerians. The "Ancient Kingdom of Aratta" by Artak Movsesian is also a fascinating and rich resource on this topic.

That is my opinion on the matter thus far. Fraudulent "scholarship" that ignore evidence notwithstanding, there is good work being done in Armenia and outside of Armenia by dedicated professional as well as amateur scholars. In any case, it will be interesting to see what sort of data will come about from all this research, although the outcome is partly predictable; i.e. there is absolutely no evidence of migration, no evidence of "genocide" or "assimilation" of "multiple tribes/cutures."

Even Xenophon's chronicles remember no other "nation" living among the Armenians. It would hardly be credible that there would be "total" assimilation of the so-called "Urartuans" within a 100 year span: i.e. Is that not what our "establishmentarians" claim to be the later period of the "migration" process, te 6th century? Well, how in the world were the "Urartuans" completely "off the face of the earth" in all manners by the 5th century? How come their name had to be invented in the 20th century by a club of anti-nationlist imperial "communist" commissars? Why, indeed, did their name not appear at all in centuries where no such "revisionist metholodogies" were adopted by "victor nations?"

Howcome, indeed, do the king lists very closely resemble those itemized by Khorenatsi? Why do our Evidence Omissionists refuse to accept the dating of Khorenatsi already established by competent scholarship in Armenia? Why does everything Armenian have to be "proven beyond teh shadow of a doubt and must withstand modern forensci tests" while "persian continuity" is not questioned, for example?

Edited by hagopn, 23 November 2003 - 02:04 AM.

[Armen]

Well, the distortion of "Urartian"/Araratian history started with Boris Piotrovski. I think he is the one responsible for all the chain of future mutations on this kingdom's (call it Ararat or Armenia etc.) history.

His idea of "Urartian language" and "unique Urartian culture" was first recycled by soviet Armenian and non-Armenian historians, then it went out to the Europe and the USA.

[hagopn]

Diakonov was the one who laid the foundation for the "Hurrianization" of the so-re-invented "Urartuan" language. In other words, he took it a step further. To complicate matters even more, "Hurrian" was, for whatever reason, identified as a possible relative of the "Finno-Ugric" language group to which the Magyar and the Finns belong. This was ot proven, but this is still an existing and accepted thesis among some circles. Since Diakonov is currently under such scrutiny in Russia as to be named a "plain liar" by prominent scholars, then I would suspect that he has committed many distortions in his "analysis" of the Hurrian identity as well.

One such example is the etymology of the so-called "Wachukani," the supposed "capital of the Hurrian kingdom of Mittanni." The "explanation" given by Diakonov was so convoluted, that I have already forgotten its dimensions. Hovik Nersesian's etymology was precisely based on that which the "Hurrians" were described as: (i.e. the so-called "Hurrians" with a possible "chariot riding Aryan aristocracy"). The "Mittanni" was a kingdom of "Chariot riders," or, in other words, of "Vachakan." Since we know that the cuneiform was deficient in not specifying vowels (as all ancient forms of script were), it would probably be safe to assume that the correct pronounciation of "wachukani" could be "Wachakani."

However, it is absolutely uniform that any connection with the Armenians is absolutely and adamantly denied except when a qualified Armenian intervenes. It is simply unprecedented behavior that occurs when it concerns Armenians. "Turkish" lobbies must be as strong as was Mustafa Kemal's idea of willing his fortune to the Turkish Historical Society. The entire idea of this "secular state" was to erase its past. Would they spare any expense? Would their "allies" (sponsors) spare any expense?

Our short-sighted "scholars" sponsored by even more short-sighted "parties" have helped to create this alarming situation.

Edited by hagopn, 23 November 2003 - 01:45 AM.

[bellthecat]

So there are vested interests at work trying to say there is no direct ethnic or cultural connection between Urartu and early Armenia Well, doh! - tell us something we don't all already know! Equally, there are vested interests trying to say that there is. And neither group uses anything that approaches a proper historical analysis.

But you are still not telling us anything specific ...

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun