Jump to content


Photo

'Aratta Armenian City - State'


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#41 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2008 - 03:52 PM

The Phrygians invaded the Hittite empire and played a rôle in its destruction. Isen't this recorded? The dates correspond with the years which the migration is believed to have happened then infiltrated Urartu at about that period (1200-1100 BC) to then the mountainous province of Shupria probably. The Hayasa themselves joined the forces against the Hittites. We know little about Hayasa language, they may have mixed with the Phrygians as like with other natives. The word Hay may have been coincidencial or they may have taken the name from the location. King Arame (858-844 BC) may have been ''Armenian'' or from the founding ethnic groups of the future defined identity, he might have been an Armeni (the tribe refered from the insciption of Sargon I). I will not post just to contradict you, I have passed the age of this sort of reply. Neither will I attempt to make sense out of some of the contradictory informations (you won't like that anyway). I have replied in the context of 'Aratta Armenian City – State', which is presented in the affirmative.

But I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote, particularly on the 600 BC. I realise that an ethnic group does not just appear like this out of nowhere. Ethnic formation takes time and is continuous, but it wasn't until Orontid dynasty where there was some defined nation. We can even argue that it was still not defined or that they were significantly prior even for some a millenium or two prior. Those are speculations, unless you have a time machine we will never know for sure. I know this does not satisfy you as reply. But I'll put it this way, how such specullations are in anyway different than the modern Azeri association or attempt at association with the Caucasian Albanians? About which date you place the existance of the Azeri ethnogenesis?

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Mar 16 2008, 04:33 PM)
You know I like you Domino, but you are simply wrong about Armenian ancient history. In fact, you are often wrong about history when it comes to make sense of things. I know you'll be hurt to hear this, but it's true. Western narrative of Armenian history has so often been so wrong or wrongheaded that it would be more efficient to dismiss it altogether and start all over again. I won't make up Germans' or Hungarians' history for them, and will be grateful if they don't try to fit their prejudices into my history. I am advocating no more than critical thinking, respecting hard evidence, respecting lack of hard evidence, reason, and common sense. If one follows a reason-dictated path, there is no way one would arrive at the Western-dictated narrative. At the end of one of Samuel Noah Cramer's books on Sumer, you'll find a glossary, where Sumerian "ururu" (an obvious cognate of Armenian "Oror", and for all we know "ururu" might have been pronounced "oror", given the limitations in deciphering vowels) is given as "lullaby". It's hard to believe that he was unaware of the connection. He probably used Armenian to decipher that and some other words. It's useful to know that he spent a lot of time in the archaelogical museum of Istanbul, and no doubt made good friends there. You see, it would be rude of him to connect Aratta to the Sumerians . He said it was a city in "western persia", oh darn, just short of Armenian highland, yet gives no reason for such placement, even though the known location Ararat-Urartu is screaming at both him and the reader. You don't have to take such "coincidence" at face value either. Sumerians had no reason whatsoever to have special dealings with some obscure place "in western persia". They had ample reason to travel upstream the two rivers that brought life, quite literally, to their country. And they in fact revered the northern highlands as the place that brought them life.

As far as when to date the start of a coherent beginning of an Armenian nation, you must know that there was a very scientific study (Gray & Atkinson) that, among other things, assigned the "split" of Armenian from the Indo-European tree at about 5000 years ago. If a coherent Armenian "nation" (group, tribe, whatever) was forged from a soup of diverse peoples at 600 BC, it would have left a profound linguistic signal that would have been screaming the date at us. Guess what? There isn't such a signal. The only "signal" we have is the split 5000 years ago. On the other hand, to me, the oldest "written" record of Armenian presence is Hayasa-Azzi (circa 1400 BC, and it's not surprising that they would take many centuries to become a distinct and serious contender to the Hittites, the more dominant fellow Indo-Europeans living on adjacent lands, and Hagop would say they were one and the same, and I am open to the possibility). Any serious doubt about the full Armenianness of Hayasa-Azzi is indicative of extreme bias, innocent or otherwise.

As far as I know, Phrygian is a poorly attested language. There is simply not enough of it on record to make any specific inferences. That was also why it wasn't included in the Gray & Atkinson study. There simply isn't enough of it there to support an unbiased, scientific analysis. Whatever the case may be, a similarity, borrowed or otherwise, between two indo-european languages spoken by two nations living in the same vicinity for a while is not particularly shocking and does not necessiate cooking up stories of Armenians being Phrygian colonists and an Armenian nation beamed into existence and utter dominance in eastern Asia Minor, completely displacing the "urartu" with no record of their "arrival" from the west at anywhere near the time in question. And complete eradication of an earlier culture so completely in a few decades is a feat that few if any of the "aggressive" nations have ever accomplished, and is completely out of character for Armenians as attested by their entire history whether you start it from 3000 BC, 1400 BC, or 550 BC. It's laughable if it weren't regarded as the "orthodox" view by lousy academics that live in industrialized and powerful countries.

All of this were discussed in this forum before for the benefit of those readers with ability to reason. To no avail it seems.

Revise your thinking.

Edited by DominO, 16 March 2008 - 04:12 PM.


#42 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:07 PM

I do not wish to continue on this further. Sorry.

QUOTE (Aratta-Kingdom @ Mar 16 2008, 03:33 PM)
Such as? Sorry you have to be specific so I can show Herodotus does not stand a CHANCE against linguistic, archaeological and anthropological evidence that Armenians are native Indo-Europeans, who have formed in their own homeland in Armenian Highland.




And what specific evidence did Eudoxus of Cnidus use?




Do you know the location of Phrygia? It is located in Asia Minor not in Thrace. Immediately to the west of Armenia. Phrygians went from Armenia (the cradle of Indo-Europeans) to Europe NOT the other way around. As far as the weaponry goes, the weaponry and armaments can be explained by this fact alone (being neighbors of Armenia hence the borrowing) and/or the fact that armaments and weaponry of MANY nations looks virtually identical. This was the case in antiquity and this is the case today. Armenian Armed Forces of today wear the Greek camoflage uniform and carry Russian (AK-47s, AK-74s) automatic rifles. Does this mean that they are Greeks or Russians? Do you see how weak that argument? Please discontinue the use of that wrong logic if you want to be take serious.



Once again see above. The clothing has been shared by neighboring peoples for millennia. The traditional clothing of Armenians in parts of Armenia for instance was indistinguishable from that of neighboring peoples (look at traditional Caucasian clothing, Georgians for instance - the Caucasian warrior dress - the Cherkesska - was even adopted by Russian Cossacks - I guess they are Caucasians also?).



Do you mean Urartians? Urartu is the Assyrian name for Ayrarat (Ararat). I can give you specific quotes from the Old Testament where Ararat is used as the synanymous name for Armenia. The native Armenian population of Ayrarat (Ararat) NEVER referred to themselves as 'Urarteans.' The Kingdom was centered around the ancient Armenian capital of Van-Tosp (Biayna-Tushpa).

Speaking of Fars. I would refer to the trilingual (Farsi, Elamite and Akkadian) Behistun inscription of King Darius which notes Arminiya (Farsi), Harminya (Elamite) and Urartu (Akkadian - Akkadian being the parent of later Assyrian) respectively for the same nation and same people. So the name Urartu is simply the Akkadian/Assyrian for Armenia (Arminiya).



I never assume anything and go by historic evidence and hard facts. Nothing short and nothing more.




Please once again see the location of Phrygia. It is NOT located in Thrace, but in Asia Minor (Anatolia) neighboring Armenia. The Phrygians crossed the Bosphorus and entered Thrace where they were known as 'Brigs.'



And I am yet to see ANY evidence that can stand up to latest linguistic and archaeological evidence that clearly shows Armenia and Armenians as the native Indo-European residents who formed in their own cradle of civilization. Please refer to the November 2003 issue of Nature where two linguists have presented their findigs based on comparison of 87 languages (old and new, dead and spoken).



Absolute hogwash. I already showed you that the name 'Urartu' and 'Urartians' is simply the Akkadian and Assyrian name for Armenia.



May I know the specific details of the 'recent findings?' so I can refute them outright. Armenians are native Indo-Europeans who have their genesis in their sacred highland. Armenia is the cradle of Indo-Europeans and the origin of the Neolithic Revolution that began the very civilization as we know it. I can give you a long list of countless scholars that have proven this beyond any shadow of a doubt. We are working on puting together as vast database based on the tireless work of these luminaries who have given best years of their life to this great work.



#43 Aratta-Kingdom

Aratta-Kingdom

    www.ArmaniKingdom.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:35 PM

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 01:52 PM)
The Phrygians invaded the Hittite empire and played a rôle in its destruction. Isen't this recorded? The dates correspond with the years which the migration is believed to have happened then infiltrated Urartu at about that period (1200-1100 BC) to then the mountainous province of Shupria probably.


Hittites were Indo-Europeans and amongst the earliest IE inscriptions that we have are in Hittite ca. 1,800 BC. Phrygians, being immediately to the West of Hatti Kingdom (Western Asia Minor) fought a number of wars against Hittites, as did the Hayasans. In fact the 'asa' part of Hayasa, is the Hittite plural form for the Armenian Q or K' (Hayq) and rightly so. 'Urartu' is simply one of the names used by non-Armenian peoples (Akkadians, Assyrians) for Armenia. You can use Nairi or Armani (Armanum) which also included the above noted Arme-Shubria (Shupria).

QUOTE
The Hayasa themselves joined the forces against the Hittites. We know little about Hayasa language, they may have mixed with the Phrygians as like with other natives. The word Hay may have been coincidencial or they may have taken the name from the location.


Not at all. Hittites were beyond shadow of a doubt Indo-Europeans and 'asa' is simply the Hittite ending of Hay.


QUOTE
King Arame (858-844 BC) may have been ''Armenian'' or from the founding ethnic groups of the future defined identity, he might have been an Armeni (the tribe refered from the insciption of Sargon I). I will not post just to contradict you, I have passed the age of this sort of reply. Neither will I attempt to make sense out of some of the contradictory informations (you won't like that anyway). I have replied in the context of 'Aratta Armenian City – State', which is presented in the affirmative.


King Aram (also noted by the fifth century father of Armenian History Movses Khorenatsi as one of the Armenian patriachal kings). Yet again the sacred root Ar is at the core of this Armenian name of an Armenian king. Again, the usage of the name 'Urartian' (used specifically by Assyrians for Armenia) is completely wrong for there is no such people.

QUOTE
But I think you have misinterpreted what I wrote, particularly on the 600 BC. I realise that an ethnic group does not just appear like this out of nowhere. Ethnic formation takes time and is continuous, but it wasn't until Orontid dynasty where there was some defined nation. We can even argue that it was still not defined or that they were significantly prior even for some a millenium or two prior. Those are speculations, unless you have a time machine we will never know for sure. I know this does not satisfy you as reply.


The Armenian language is a root Indo-European language and the above reference by Twilight for the fundamental research by Gray and Atkins (parts of which were published in the November 2003 issue of Nature) is crucial in this regard. They simply advanced already rather through research by Renfrew, Ivanov and Ruhlen amongst many others.

QUOTE
But I'll put it this way, how such specullations are in anyway different than the modern Azeri association or attempt at association with the Caucasian Albanians? About which date you place the existance of the Azeri ethnogenesis?


Caucasian Albanians were Caucasians and NOT Turkics. The 'Azeris' were called Tatars (Turks) of Caucasus as late as first half of 20th century. The name Azerbaijan (a Persians variant of the Armenian name for Atrpatakan province) was used as a geographic and not an ethnic marker. It was not until 1918 that the 'Republic of Azerbaijan' was first used and the residents of Azerbaijan included Armenians, Tatars (who later started calling themselves 'Azerbaijanis'), Russians, Georgians etc. Only in 1936, in the Stalinist constitution of USSR we see the first use of the name 'Azerbaijani' to specifically refer to the Tatars or Turks of Caucasus.

Edited by Zartonk, 16 March 2008 - 08:08 PM.


#44 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 16 March 2008 - 04:53 PM

domino here is the source you need to be really reading, so what I suggest is eighter get the book or give it some time for me to post it...

Now here is a quote for you to be working on taken directly from the book with sources.
ARMENIA, SUBARTU and SUMER
The Indo-European Homeland and Ancient Mesopotamia
by MARTIROS KAVOUKJIAN
Page 101 chapter - THE PEOPLES OF THE ARMENIAN HIGHLAND IN ANTIQUITY

Quote - "It is as clear as day that Urartians were Armenians who worshiped Haldi. We already know that Haldi is Hayk, the selfsame hero (the patriarch of the Armenians) who fought against Bel (the Assyro-Babylonian god). And this Armenian has named his son Haldi-ta, just as many Armenians have named and continue to name their sons Hayk-ak or simply Hayk."

So you see Dom jan there has been many facts and resources brought to us troughout our history that you simply like to disregard and follow the so called bible with no sources...

No my brother our history doesn't start from 600bc our history starts from 11000 bc, therefore please do more researches, if there is something you are interested in knowing please let me know I will provide you with every single proove and detail the material needed. Please brother stop contributing your time on helping others to try and shut us up, to tell us that we are wrong about our history, and I suggest you get into it and develop your knowledge in regards of the History Of Armenians!

#45 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:07 PM

Yes, Ashot, it is the same study. I read your response after I wrote mine. I put a link to that paper in this forum at the time, the day it came out. It put a number on what I was beginning to conclude based on reading, comparing and filtering what I had read through a test of logical consistency and common sense. I take offense at the suggestion that I have to be some wild propagandist, comparable to the fabricators of azeri fairy tales or the racist sun-language theory of the official turkish history. The obvious fundamental difference is that the Azeri and Turkish fantasies violate logic and common sense, while extending the date of Armenian ethnogenesis further back than 550 BC is necessitated by logic and common sense.

To those who ridicule Armenian attempts at correcting their hijacked history:
I fail to understand why defending, based on sound logic and evidence, something as fundamental as the ethnogenesis of Armenians and how firmly native we are to Asia Minor and the Armenian Highland is counterproductive in the context of Azeri fabrications. So all they have to do to stop us from defending the history of our origins is to make a lame attempt to extend their presence in the same lands to 1 zillion BC? Is that how quickly we should fold?


QUOTE (Ashot @ Mar 16 2008, 02:07 PM)
Twilight jan, thank you very much for supporting the mentioned "November 2003 issue of Nature where two linguists have presented their findigs based on comparison of 87 languages (old and new, dead and spoken). ", I am very sure you have read the journal and you are fully aware of the facts. Thank you for your response.

Aratta jan, thank you pointing out the facts, you have left no room for me to argue for the cause!!!

Domino jan after this point there is one thing left, do more researches and create more self interest toward knowing the reality, and the true HISTORY!!!



#46 Aratta-Kingdom

Aratta-Kingdom

    www.ArmaniKingdom.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 02:52 PM)
King Arame (858-844 BC) may have been ''Armenian'' or from the founding ethnic groups of the future defined identity, he might have been an Armeni (the tribe refered from the insciption of Sargon I).



King Aram my have been "Armenian"??? smile.gif Look what the scholars say about the name Aram and the Aramaeans:





n the early stages of critical historiography in 19th century, the idea was advanced that the terms Arma or Aram, and Arime or Arme are Semitic and pertain to the Semites. I. Diakonoff, makes the supposition tha the name Armina ( Armini-Armeni) is given to Armenian and the Armenians because of their neighborhood to the Aramaeans in the southern region of Hayk.

The idea of seeing a Semitic origin in the names Arma, Aram, Arim, Arime, Arme, Armani, Armina, Armeni, and the like, had become such an obsession with some authors that it prevents them from seeing the essence of the interrelationships between the Armenian Highland and Northern Mesopotamia, and creates added difficulties for the clarification of certain obscure problems related to them.

The fact is that the very name Aram has no connection of origin with those Semites who were later called Aramaeans. A careful study of the cuneiform documents of the Near East shows that the Semitic nomadic tribes that were later called Aramaeans, were previously known by the names Sutu and Ahlame. They had come to Northern Mesopotamia and settled in the territories of Mitanni ( Naharina) which was either destroyed or about to be destroyed at that time, and they were called Aramaeans after the ancient name Arma or Aram of the land on which they settled. A similar example is the case of the Egyptians; the name Egypt did not belong to the Arabs, but they have come and settled in the land of Egypt, and by this ancient name of the land they were (and still are) called Egyptians.

J. Myers had written earlier that the Aramaeans* seem to have started to come out of Northeastern Arabia around 1350 B.C. when nomadic marauders whom the Babylonian kings called “SUTI AND ACHLAME” were spreading, looting and devastating along the entire Euphratian border.

R. O’Callaghan has the following to say about the appearance of these Semitic tribes: “The Sutu and the Akhlamu are first mentioned in Assyrian sources as appearing in the time of Arik-den-ili (1316-1305) of Assyria. The former name is connected with the Egyptian Sttyw, meaning “Asiatics”. Thus as a matter of fact they do service as Egyptian mercenaries…”

We see an indication to the recent appearance of these tribes in Northern Mesopotamia in the following statement of Adad-Nirari I (cir. 1310-1280 B.C.): “…conqueror of the lands of Turuki and Nigimhi in their totality, together with all their kings, mountains, and highlands, the territory of widespreading Kuti (v. adds, conqueror of Kutmuhi and all of its allies), the hordes of the Ahlami and Suti, the Iauri and their lands, who enlarged boundary and frontier…”

As we see, according to Adad_Nirari’s assertion, at the beginning of the 13th century these Semitic tribes were still in the process of enlarging their borders by moving forth and occupying new territories that did not belong to them.

#47 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2008 - 05:34 PM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Mar 16 2008, 07:07 PM)
To those who ridicule Armenian attempts at correcting their hijacked history:
I fail to understand why defending, based on sound logic and evidence, something as fundamental as the ethnogenesis of Armenians and how firmly native we are to Asia Minor and the Armenian Highland is counterproductive in the context of Azeri fabrications. So all they have to do to stop us from defending the history of our origins is to make a lame attempt to extend their presence in the same lands to 1 zillion BC? Is that how quickly we should fold?


TB, the association the Azeri are doing is by using the language migration theory. They claim the people were living there (Aka Caucasian Albanians) and they then only changed language. Without evidences that those ''Aratta'' were talking anything close to Armenian we are limited to making the same sort of argument. Most Phrygian writtings have yet to be translated, if Armenian scholars want to attempt correcting the hijacking, they could start with attempting to decipher those and see if there is anything relevent.

#48 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:09 PM

Azeris have nothing to do with Caucasian Albanians. Azeris claim they are decendants of Caucasian Albanians when in fact they are a Turkic people, who speak a Turkic language and have Turkic origin (invaders from Central Asia into Caucasus in the Middle Ages). The Azeris NEVER had an alphabet of their own and used Arabic, Cyrillic and Latin script for their TURKIC words. Please do not repeat the same false 'arguments' used by the 'Azeris' themselves. I remind you what these 'Azeris' were known as as late as 1930s.

The study that I noted by those two renowned scholars (which included Phrygian amongst the nearly 90 languages) is once again fundamental in this regard. Armenia IS the Cradle of Indo-Europeans.

#49 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:14 PM

Only a few isolated tribes can claim to descend from a single clan. Most nations absorb different groups as time goes by. The important test for self-consistency is how that nation sees itself, and how they relate to other nations, particularly the neighboring ones. If they see themselves as Turkic, they can't see themselves as "just caucasians that changed their language". The Irish choose to identify themselves as celtic, which perfectly reasonable and honorable. It would also be alright if they chose to identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon or Nordic or whatever, based on the language that almost all of them speak. The Azeris cannot be simultaneously be Turkic and Caucasian. They need to make a choice. Or they can choose to identify themselves as some sort of a "mulatto" or hybrid people with no coherent ties to anybody else. They are all fine. They just aren't fine when they are chosen according to whom they talk to or what they want to extract from their counterpart, depending on the day. Armenians hopefully are not in that business.

As for Phrygian, I am sure whatever could be deciphered has been deciphered. I don't think people are holding back. It's not up to Armenians to decipher the undecipherable in order to disprove the unproven. In any case, similarity to Phrygian does not by itself preclude the Armenianness of Hayasa or the fact that Armenian has been spoken by a coherent set of people and has been evolving separately since 3000 BC.

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 04:34 PM)
TB, the association the Azeri are doing is by using the language migration theory. They claim the people were living there (Aka Caucasian Albanians) and they then only changed language. Without evidences that those ''Aratta'' were talking anything close to Armenian we are limited to making the same sort of argument. Most Phrygian writtings have yet to be translated, if Armenian scholars want to attempt correcting the hijacking, they could start with attempting to decipher those and see if there is anything relevent.



#50 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:35 PM

Your fear of ridicule is taking into denial territory, denial of pretty strong evidence, considering the time period we are dealing with.

Nothing I have said suggests there no link between Phyrigians and Armenians. Similarities between Armenian, Phrygians, and Thracians says nothing about the direction of migration. If anything, it more than likely suggests the Armenians migrated westwards. There is not a shred of proof to seriously suggest that so-called "Porot-Armenians" migrated from Thrace.

There is no proof whatsoever that "Urartuans" and Armenians were not the same culture. There is plenty to suggest they were, and much of it is itemized in Gavoukjian's book. Secondary opinions of Diakonov, Pyotrivski, Gelb, and others who 1) did not know the Armenian language adequately if at all, and 2) had a strikingly obvious anti-Armenian bias is worthless. Primary evidence suggests Armenians were always there as the very process of Armenian ethnogenesis took place there. There is every reason to believe that is the case.

Nothing you have said takes into account any updated information beyond the 1950 mark at the most. Please, if you wish to discuss this issue seriously, read on newer material, at least past 1980. If you suggest yet again that the name Armanu does not refer to Armenians, then I have no idea what does!

The fact is that the name Armenia, Armani, and all of ts variants have been in that land prior to the 3rd millinnium b.c. That is a fact, a irrefutable fact carved in stone.

The irrational fear is unfounded. Turks are working to suggest that Armenians did not exist at all in that region prior to the 5th century, and slowly but surely they will succeed.

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 07:20 PM)
Materials and evidences on Thraco-Phrygian and Armenian relation are abound.The similairities and the arguments are the strongest provided. Herodotus claim is supported from the linguistic affinities as well as logical historical continuity. Eudoxus of Cnidus in the 370 BC commented on the similairities between Armenian and Phrygian, at about that time, both people could have probably spoken with eachothers and could have understood the basics (Hurrian borrowings in Armenian minus). Herodotus arguments were supported by his descriptions of the Armenians serving for Xerxes in 480 BC, the Armenian contingents were armed and prepared like the Phrygians. This is also supported by Strabo on the described style which was Thessalian (for his period as the Thessalian's had Phrygian style for horesemanship too).

The evidences are abound, the Phrygian advance into Armenia is documented with archeological findings such as what has been found in Irbil (acient Arbela), which shows Phrygian type wearings, which are very similar to later Armenian carvings..., those Thracian type tumuli were found in Malatya, Kharput and Diyarbakir. Herofotus place the migration before the Trojan War.

This is one side of the Armenian identity, the other would be the Uratians..., the mixture gave the Armenians with significant homogeniouty to be identifiable at about 600-550 BC. The Persians in all respect had also similar ethnigenises contruction which spread from Fars.

You are also assuming that I am doing this out of fear of Turkish and Azeri ridicule. While the fear is true, the way you place it make it sound as if I'd fear regardless of if the arguments may be valid. I fear ridicule, period..., presenting the Phrygian theory as something which was the product of some sort of politically correctness is absurd. The Phrygian theory is not Turkish propaganda, it is valid and very much supported. Had the Turks paid a little more attention, they'd see that East Southern Phrygia is now part of the current republic of Turkey still.

I also don't understand what you mean when you cover the Phrygians and Armenians, I have yet to see those who oppose this thesis to address the very strong arguments adequatly.

One thing which you may be right, is that migration alone is not an accurate description of what happened. What probably happened is that the natives of the region assimilated with the Colonists. After the fall of Urartu, the Armenians have become the predominent people. Recent findings already suggest that Urartu was a very heterogenous and multi-ethnical society, and gradually a group of the population acquired enough self identification to take advantage of the fall and request independence with the Orontid Dynasty.



#51 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2008 - 06:53 PM

The lack of vowels is directly related to the fact that we have learned of Sumerian lexicon through Akkadian bilingual inscriptions, dicitonaries and other instructional tablets. the phonetical study the Akkadian priesthood carried out is our only source of Sumerian phonetics.

People simply do not know the primary evidence and they swallow whole seconary biased trash.

I wish I had the time to dig back into the books as I did in my twenties, but right now I don't feel like debating zombies. Sorry.

To all of you, including you TB, who understands the actual issue at hand, more power to you. To the rest who insist on taking politicized history as if it ws faxed from Heaven University, good luck in life for now. I am tired and weary.

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Mar 16 2008, 08:33 PM)
You know I like you Domino, but you are simply wrong about Armenian ancient history. In fact, you are often wrong about history when it comes to make sense of things. I know you'll be hurt to hear this, but it's true. Western narrative of Armenian history has so often been so wrong or wrongheaded that it would be more efficient to dismiss it altogether and start all over again. I won't make up Germans' or Hungarians' history for them, and will be grateful if they don't try to fit their prejudices into my history. I am advocating no more than critical thinking, respecting hard evidence, respecting lack of hard evidence, reason, and common sense. If one follows a reason-dictated path, there is no way one would arrive at the Western-dictated narrative. At the end of one of Samuel Noah Cramer's books on Sumer, you'll find a glossary, where Sumerian "ururu" (an obvious cognate of Armenian "Oror", and for all we know "ururu" might have been pronounced "oror", given the limitations in deciphering vowels) is given as "lullaby". It's hard to believe that he was unaware of the connection. He probably used Armenian to decipher that and some other words. It's useful to know that he spent a lot of time in the archaelogical museum of Istanbul, and no doubt made good friends there. You see, it would be rude of him to connect Aratta to the Sumerians . He said it was a city in "western persia", oh darn, just short of Armenian highland, yet gives no reason for such placement, even though the known location Ararat-Urartu is screaming at both him and the reader. You don't have to take such "coincidence" at face value either. Sumerians had no reason whatsoever to have special dealings with some obscure place "in western persia". They had ample reason to travel upstream the two rivers that brought life, quite literally, to their country. And they in fact revered the northern highlands as the place that brought them life.

As far as when to date the start of a coherent beginning of an Armenian nation, you must know that there was a very scientific study (Gray & Atkinson) that, among other things, assigned the "split" of Armenian from the Indo-European tree at about 5000 years ago. If a coherent Armenian "nation" (group, tribe, whatever) was forged from a soup of diverse peoples at 600 BC, it would have left a profound linguistic signal that would have been screaming the date at us. Guess what? There isn't such a signal. The only "signal" we have is the split 5000 years ago. On the other hand, to me, the oldest "written" record of Armenian presence is Hayasa-Azzi (circa 1400 BC, and it's not surprising that they would take many centuries to become a distinct and serious contender to the Hittites, the more dominant fellow Indo-Europeans living on adjacent lands, and Hagop would say they were one and the same, and I am open to the possibility). Any serious doubt about the full Armenianness of Hayasa-Azzi is indicative of extreme bias, innocent or otherwise.

As far as I know, Phrygian is a poorly attested language. There is simply not enough of it on record to make any specific inferences. That was also why it wasn't included in the Gray & Atkinson study. There simply isn't enough of it there to support an unbiased, scientific analysis. Whatever the case may be, a similarity, borrowed or otherwise, between two indo-european languages spoken by two nations living in the same vicinity for a while is not particularly shocking and does not necessiate cooking up stories of Armenians being Phrygian colonists and an Armenian nation beamed into existence and utter dominance in eastern Asia Minor, completely displacing the "urartu" with no record of their "arrival" from the west at anywhere near the time in question. And complete eradication of an earlier culture so completely in a few decades is a feat that few if any of the "aggressive" nations have ever accomplished, and is completely out of character for Armenians as attested by their entire history whether you start it from 3000 BC, 1400 BC, or 550 BC. It's laughable if it weren't regarded as the "orthodox" view by lousy academics that live in industrialized and powerful countries.

All of this were discussed in this forum before for the benefit of those readers with ability to reason. To no avail it seems.

Revise your thinking.



#52 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 09:52 PM)
The Phrygians invaded the Hittite empire and played a rôle in its destruction. Isen't this recorded? The dates correspond with the years which the migration is believed to have happened then infiltrated Urartu at about that period (1200-1100 BC) to then the mountainous province of Shupria probably. The Hayasa themselves joined the forces against the Hittites.


certainly. These were states from a larger theater of ethnically related groupings.

In recent european history you have the Prussian invade and conquer the Germanic Elector states, whereas the Electors were strongly pro-Polish in their political leanings.

There are hundreds of other examples, but, to prove the obvious is something I am weary of.

Good bye.

#53 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:25 PM

QUOTE (DominO @ Mar 16 2008, 02:52 PM)
The Phrygians invaded the Hittite empire and played a rôle in its destruction. Isen't this recorded?

The Phrygians. Not Hyes.

QUOTE
The dates correspond with the years which the migration is believed to have happened then infiltrated Urartu at about that period (1200-1100 BC) to then the mountainous province of Shupria probably.
And those extremely warlike tribes stayed dormant and unrecorded under Urartu while Urartu arose, got recorded in the Assyrian archives, and when the Urartu state collapsed, they all of a sudden became the dominant group? And not before?

QUOTE
We know little about Hayasa language, they may have mixed with the Phrygians as like with other natives.

Hayasa means "Of Hyes" or in the context "Hyeland" in Hittite. Azzi is screaming at us as the word "Az(k)" in Armenian, which means "nation", or "clan" (as in azkagan). They were neighbors and rivals with indo-european speaking Hittites. That's all I need to know.

QUOTE
The word Hay may have been coincidencial or they may have taken the name from the location.
Well, the word Turk in Gok-Turk may be a "coincidence" too, but nobody, least of all the Turks, take that kind of silly "probability" seriously. Nor should they.

QUOTE
King Arame (858-844 BC) may have been ''Armenian'' or from the founding ethnic groups of the future defined identity, he might have been an Armeni (the tribe refered from the insciption of Sargon I).
King Aram fits right into Khorenatsi's recording of the oral history. If the carriers of Armenian oral history reflect the fact that Armenians regarded Aram as one of them, that's much more important than which anthropological tribe Aram may have descended from 20000 years ago. And this kind of demand for unnecessary proving the obvious should be left to those with hostile agendas.

In your narrative, there is no explanation for the sudden appearance of Yervantuni dynasty, with a fully dominant Armenian population in the Urartu domain. If Armenians were a nonentity before then, how come they replaced the supposedly different "Urartu people" so thoroughly after the collpase of the Urartu state? They would have to stay dormant since the time of Phrygian invasions, and then must have risen up and completely exterminated the "Urartu people" so as to completely erase any memory of an Urartu nation. Such a cataclysmic event might have gone unrecorded in subsaharan Africa, but not at the center of civilization of the time. On the other hand, the non-Persian part of the Behistun inscription refers to Armenia as Urartu or some variation of it. Clearly, the two were synonymous at the time. The "change" from "Urartu" to "Armenia" was nothing more than a change of dynasty, and not a major event.

Anyway, I have really real things to attend to right now. It's your choice whether you think independently or not.

Edited by Twilight Bark, 16 March 2008 - 07:34 PM.


#54 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 07:56 PM

QUOTE (hagopn @ Mar 16 2008, 04:53 PM)
To all of you, including you TB, who understands the actual issue at hand, more power to you. To the rest who insist on taking politicized history as if it ws faxed from Heaven University, good luck in life for now. I am tired and weary.

Oh, I just got sucked into posting here because of the propagandistic posts on shenanigans in Armenia. I really should stop too.

#55 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2008 - 08:04 PM

QUOTE (Ashot @ Mar 17 2008, 01:09 AM)
Azeris have nothing to do with Caucasian Albanians. Azeris claim they are decendants of Caucasian Albanians when in fact they are a Turkic people, who speak a Turkic language and have Turkic origin (invaders from Central Asia into Caucasus in the Middle Ages). The Azeris NEVER had an alphabet of their own and used Arabic, Cyrillic and Latin script for their TURKIC words. Please do not repeat the same false 'arguments' used by the 'Azeris' themselves. I remind you what these 'Azeris' were known as as late as 1930s.

The study that I noted by those two renowned scholars (which included Phrygian amongst the nearly 90 languages) is once again fundamental in this regard. Armenia IS the Cradle of Indo-Europeans.


check this thread http://hyeforum.com/...art=#entry78917

Check the argument that went on between an Azeri posing as "Gino" and myself.

#56 hagopn

hagopn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2008 - 08:17 PM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Mar 17 2008, 02:56 AM)
Oh, I just got sucked into posting here because of the propagandistic posts on shenanigans in Armenia. I really should stop too.


Ah, come on, you could have fooled me. You seem to know the topic well and the enrgy to express your opinion on it. I am not in the position to argue this topic as I was in the past, though, honestly.

#57 Twilight Bark

Twilight Bark

    Resigned

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,060 posts

Posted 16 March 2008 - 08:34 PM

QUOTE (hagopn @ Mar 16 2008, 07:17 PM)
Ah, come on, you could have fooled me. You seem to know the topic well and the enrgy to express your opinion on it. I am not in the position to argue this topic as I was in the past, though, honestly.

But that's the truth. I am sure you know the phrase "running on vapor".


#58 MosJan

MosJan

    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 16 March 2008 - 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Twilight Bark @ Mar 16 2008, 05:56 PM)
Oh, I just got sucked into posting here because of the propagandistic posts on shenanigans in Armenia. I really should stop too.






TB jan apricot.gif this place is like hotel California for me - You can checkout any time you like,
But you can never leave!

#59 Ashot

Ashot

    www.HyeForum.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 17 March 2008 - 05:30 AM

Rough update has been made to www.arattakingdom.com
For more information regarding the topic please refer to the website!

#60 Aratta-Kingdom

Aratta-Kingdom

    www.ArmaniKingdom.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 17 March 2008 - 03:12 PM


Aratta: The Land of Gods And The Cosmic Mountain






Aratta- The Land of the Mountains Where the Gods Live of the great Epic of Gilgamesh. The Land where the Garden of Eden— the Tree of Life and the Tree of Wisdom is located… the Twin peaks of Mashu – the SYMBOL of the holy Cosmic Mountain. When many of us hear this name we picture the birth and rebirth of humanity and human civilization in the sacred land in the highlands of Armenia. The Bible also recounts the ancient storied of Genesis, including the Paradise [ Birth of Humanity ] and also the Rebirth of Humanity in the sacred Mountains of the Land of Ararat, the holy land where the resurrection of the human race took place. The twin Peaks of Mount Ararat are in the heart of Armenia, and from a bipolar geographical objective one can argue that of the world. They are symbolic of the Holy Mountains of the Land of Aratta/Ararat [ Kuti-Buti-mountain range in the Sumerian inscription and the Al-Judi of the later Islamic writings] --- the location of Ararat/Ararad in the Korduk Procince in the southern section of the Armenian Plateau [ The Twin Peak Masis in the Ayrarat Province being the SYMBOL of Armenia-Ararat ---Land of the Holy Mountains ] . Since times immemorial Ararat [also Ayrarat in Armenian sources, Aratta in Sumerian inscription, Urartu in Assyrian inscriptions and Ararat in Hebrew sources [ the reference in the Book of Jubilees states: ‘Ur built his city after his won name Ar.A’ in fact the Sumerian city of Ur was alternatively known as ARA which stood for the Solar Deity in the Armenian Pantheon and in Sumerian means Shining and also City implying the fact that the very Civilization is associated with Light/Knowledge/Sun ] has been a Holy Mountain and a Holy land ofr the peoples of the ancient world. The Sumerians that were of Armenid extraction had established one of the first centers of civilization in the lower part of Mesopotamia. They were the descendants of the shamanic high priests of ARMAN – ARAM of Subartu-Aratta of Metsamor (Medzamor), Ur-Hai [ Urfa, later Edessa the ORION center], Harran, Gobekli Tepe [Navel Mountain – translation of ancient Arman name associated with Female + Male union], Nevali Cori, Cayonu and Catal Huyuk. The Sumerians inhabited Armenian Highland and gradually descended to first Northern Mesopotamia and eventually spread further south, establishing the cities of Ur [ excavated by Sir Leonard Wooley in the 1920s] , Uruk and Eridu [ note the sacred AR-MAN variations --- AR-UR-ER-OR prefix]. Fortunately a number of Sumerian inscriptions dating from somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BC have been preserved. They give us fascinating glimpse into the Sumerian origins and culture. In the great EPIC OF GILGAMESH , the Sumerians recount THE LAND OF THEIR ANCESTORS, THE ARATTANS IN THE HIGHLANDS OF ARMENIA. The Epic of Gilgamesh written ca. 2700 BC, tells us the story of the GREAT FLOOD and the rebirth of Life [ the Tree of Life or the Garden [ PARTEZ – PARADIZE – the main motif in the Armenian – Hurrian – Mitanni – Araratian reliefs ] of Eden located in Armenia – the Land of Four Rivers. Aratta [ Subari- Sumerians also known as Suberians and called themselves Shinar[ar]s was in fact the first Indo-European state that existed in the first half of the third millennium BC. Land of Nairi (Armenia) literary means the Land of Waters and Fire – that is symbolic of the Armenian Highland of many rivers and lakes and the fiery volcanic mountains- with Tigris and Euphrates originating in the sacred highlands and flowing downward to south thus nourishing and giving Life to the land between the two rivers and the Fertile Crescent that is otherwise surrounded by scorching deserts. The Sumerians note that the their ancestors the Arattans – from AR-AR-AR. AR-AR [Ararich – the Creator] being a plural form or the Supreme God. According to the Sumerian inscriptions, the Arratan ancestors established a divine Kingdom and civilization, and ultimately carried it to the four corners of the world –including among others the Sumerian cities of Ur [in Sumerian Ur or ARA literally means Shining/Bright/Light the Solar Deity in the Armenian Pantheon carries that name] and Uruk. The inscriptions also tell us that the Arattans were outstanding horsemen – the tradition of the Armenian warrior horsemen [the Ayrudzi] would continue down the many millennia, distinguishing itself in the battlefields.



The Armenid Sumerians’ primary deity was the amphibious God EA-HAYA. The God of Wisdom with the appearance of half-man half-fish.

Son of Haya, was Dumuzi symbolic of the sacred – ORION – in the Armenian priestly astrology representative of Hay[a]k -- Child of God HAYA-EA [Eut’iwn]. The Armenian Temple City of Urha – Orrheone [later Urfa ] being one of the most important ancient centers of the solar cult of Orion [ Hayk ] renowned throughout the ancient world. The Armenic Sumerians used the ancient name Uru-anna [lit. the Light of Heaven]. In Armenia, the same place as described in the Bible as being where Nimrod [ Nemrut ] built his major cities we find the origin of the celestial cult of Orion.

Aldebaran is one of the easier stars to find in the night sky, partly due to its brightness and partly due to its spatial relation to one of the more noticeable asterisms in the sky. If one follows the three stars of Orion’s belt from left to right [in the Northern Hemisphere ] or right to left [in the Southern], the first bright star found by continuing that line is Aldebaran.

Astrologically, Aldebaran was a fortunate star, portending riches and honor. This star is one of the four “royal stars” of the Armenic ancestors. As the star of illumination, Aldebaran irradiates the Way using the applied power of transformation. In seeking illumination, we can cultivate the ability to use the mind as a reflector of soul light. The other three Royal Stars are Antares in the constellation Scorpio the Scorpion, the Western Royal Star, Regulus in the constellation Leo the Lion, the Northern Royal Star, and Fomalhaut in the constellation Pisces Austrinus, the Southern Fish - close to the constellation Aquarius - the Southern Royal Star. This brilliant star, has been used for centuries in navigation, and is known by many civilizations to be connected with the spirits of rain and the fertility of the Earth. Approximately 5000 years ago, the rising of Aldebaran marked the vernal equinox and was the beginning of the astronomical New Year.



The Age of Gemini brought about the worship of the twin-gods symbolized by the Twin Mountain [ -Mount Masis being but a prominent symbol – of the Land of Ararad/Ararat]. The later off-shoot Phoenician, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Verdic cultures are testimony to the cult of the Twins [ Sanasar and Baghdasar according to the archetypical arcane Cosmic Epic – The Daredevils of Sasum, born from Tsovinar - Creatrix Mother Goddess Quantum Ocean of Life] –born of the mating of the universal male principle symbolized by the Sun and universal female principle symbolized by Earth and the Moon. Since Gemini is the sigh of writing and communication, we find that new languages were discovered and spread in this time. The Armenic Arattans and Shinar-[ar]-s [Sumerians] were the first to have the divine art of writing- spreading it to all parts of the globe.








0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users