Jump to content


Photo

Urartu


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#21 HyeFedayis

HyeFedayis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingdom of Ararat

Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:20 AM

Armenians were not Urartu indeed but the turks are ridiculousle they claim everyone is there ancestors jesus man just stop! urartu,akkadians,hurrians etc there historians are a joke.

#22 Proud EXPAT

Proud EXPAT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 22 January 2007 - 05:11 PM

fabricated BS, there was no such thing as URARTU. a great kingdom that supposedly vanished into thin air and all of a sudden this new race appeared out of no where called the Armenians. all f-en BS!

#23 Zartonk

Zartonk

    Magnificent!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Մարդկության ու ճշմարտության միջև

Posted 22 January 2007 - 05:30 PM

1-There exist far too many artifacts and finds to dismiss "Urartu" as BS.

2-PLEASE use the word in the right context: Urartu is NOT the name of a people. Armenians were NOT Urartu, they were Urartian.

3-DON'T SAY URARTU!

It is Ararat & the Araratian kingdom.

#24 Proud EXPAT

Proud EXPAT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:52 AM

QUOTE(Zartonk @ Jan 22 2007, 05:30 PM) View Post

1-There exist far too many artifacts and finds to dismiss "Urartu" as BS.

2-PLEASE use the word in the right context: Urartu is NOT the name of a people. Armenians were NOT Urartu, they were Urartian.

3-DON'T SAY URARTU!

It is Ararat & the Araratian kingdom.


where exactly did I say we are Urartu?

the Jews will always be our worst enemies twisting every historical truth to minimize our race's worthy role in history. NO WE DID NOT APPEAR OUT OF NO WHERE and take over the traditions of the so called Urartu people. the Araratian Kingdom was the kingdom of the our race, the Armenian race.

#25 Zartonk

Zartonk

    Magnificent!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Մարդկության ու ճշմարտության միջև

Posted 23 January 2007 - 08:09 AM

QUOTE
NO WE DID NOT APPEAR OUT OF NO WHERE and take over the traditions of the so called Urartu people. the Araratian Kingdom was the kingdom of the our race, the Armenian race.


Right you are Sir.

#26 HyeFedayis

HyeFedayis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingdom of Ararat

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE(Zartonk @ Jan 22 2007, 06:30 PM) View Post

1-There exist far too many artifacts and finds to dismiss "Urartu" as BS.

2-PLEASE use the word in the right context: Urartu is NOT the name of a people. Armenians were NOT Urartu, they were Urartian.

3-DON'T SAY URARTU!

It is Ararat & the Araratian kingdom.


Urartu, Aratta, Araratian kingdom all the same things.

Artifacts need to be proven and Urartu has not been efficiently.

But it makes sense when you look at there history but obviously the Turks will try to steal our history, and change it to there suitable needs, we need more historians who can prove this Urartu is important to our history.

#27 Proud EXPAT

Proud EXPAT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:25 PM

QUOTE(HyeFedayis @ Jan 23 2007, 04:53 PM) View Post

Urartu, Aratta, Araratian kingdom all the same things.

Artifacts need to be proven and Urartu has not been efficiently.

But it makes sense when you look at there history but obviously the Turks will try to steal our history, and change it to there suitable needs, we need more historians who can prove this Urartu is important to our history.


the sad reality is that we Armenians keep using the name Urartu rather than Ararat.

there are so much info on the net that completely contradicts eachother.

i mean naturally it's going to be confusing since we're talking about a huge area of land where not only Armenians have lived.

it just seems stupid that i keep running into this thing about Urartu and its so called Urartians disappeared and suddenly we appeared. how does that work when our roots were with the Hayasa-Azzi and Armens which were before the so called Urartians? or should i be looking more west towards Phrygia and not only the central and eastern Armenian Highland.

UKH! too much info.

#28 Armenak

Armenak

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:31 PM

I agree with Proud EXPAT. It's all very confusing.

#29 Eurocentric

Eurocentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:33 PM

Uh, Urartu is Assyrian. Ararat is JEWISH!!!!

The word Ararat has only been recorded in the Bible, it's the Hebrew rendering of the Assyrian Urartu!

The inhabitants of Urartu called their nation BIAINILI not ***ing Urartu or Ararat.

#30 Proud EXPAT

Proud EXPAT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 23 January 2007 - 06:55 PM

QUOTE(Eurocentric @ Jan 23 2007, 06:33 PM) View Post

Uh, Urartu is Assyrian. Ararat is JEWISH!!!!

The word Ararat has only been recorded in the Bible, it's the Hebrew rendering of the Assyrian Urartu!

The inhabitants of Urartu called their nation BIAINILI not ***ing Urartu or Ararat.


yes Eurocentric, i knew about the points you made.

my point is that in the last century there have been some distortions by our enemies. constantly using the name Urartu instead of Ararat makes it seem like Urartu had no real connection to the Armenians. that probably didnt make sense but its 5am right now. wacko.gif

we need to stop using the name Urartu just as we need to stop using Karabagh instead of Artsakh.

i found an old thread where Artaxias mentioned this:
"So far this is what I gather. IE Hittites took over non-IE Hattis. Later IE proto-Armenians took over what's left of the Hittites and eventually coexisted in the East with the Hurro-Urartians for a while, gaining total domination when Cimmerians/Scythians invaded destroying Urartu/Phrygia and going further into Europa. That's when Media takes over, obviously preferring IE Armenian over the weird non-IE Urartian.
So until that point everyone involved from Hittites to Thraco-Phrygians and Cimmerians and the non-IE Hurrians, Hayasas etc. are all proto-Armenians."


sort of makes sense yet proto-Armenian definition is quite confusing especially in wikipedia's definition - the part that says "Armenian has many layers of loanwords and shows traces of long language contact with Hurro-Urartian". again, where do the Hayasa-Azi and Armens come into the picture and what the heck is the Urartu language?

i think i give up. like i said, the area is so huge that it's practically impossible to come up with one explanation.


#31 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 23 January 2007 - 08:05 PM

QUOTE(Proud EXPAT @ Jan 24 2007, 12:55 AM) View Post

yes Eurocentric, i knew about the points you made.
=====
sort of makes sense yet proto-Armenian definition is quite confusing especially in wikipedia's definition - the part that says "Armenian has many layers of loanwords and shows traces of long language contact with Hurro-Urartian". again, where do the Hayasa-Azi and Armens come into the picture and what the heck is the Urartu language?

i think i give up. like i said, the area is so huge that it's practically impossible to come up with one explanation.

Look also here;
http://hyeforum.com/...showtopic=14306

#32 Eurocentric

Eurocentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 08:58 AM

QUOTE(Proud EXPAT @ Jan 23 2007, 07:25 PM) View Post

the sad reality is that we Armenians keep using the name Urartu rather than Ararat.


You missed the point. The word Ararat is as foreign as is the word Urartu. One is Assyrian the other is the Hebrew rendition of the Assyrian found in the Bible. The people of Urartu themselves called their land Bianili.

QUOTE
there are so much info on the net that completely contradicts eachother.


That's the fault of Armenians who never seem to be able to differentiate myth from history.
Have you read Vahan Kurkjian's History of Armenia?

http://penelope.uchi...URARM/home.html

#33 Hellektor

Hellektor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Location:Iran

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:10 PM

Guys, this HyeFedayis group of posters is/are Turks disguised as Armenians who try to instigate futile discussions among Armenians. Just ignore them.

Urartu is a term, DECIPHERED from cuneiform inscriptions in the 20th century. It could have been read Ararta, Arartu, Urarta, etc. because cuneiform signs are syllabic and there's no certain way of pronouncing the words exactly as intended when they were written.

Urartu was the name given to Armenia by Akkadians.
Assyrians called Armenia Nairi, the land of rivers. (cf Nahr is Arabic for river: Bein ul Nahrein = Mesopotamia).
The kings of Urartu called their kingdom Biaina, the word that has changed and become Van, thus kingdom of Biaina = kingdom of Van. Compare Erebuni = Yerevan, aban = avan, abeli = aveli, all words that have the same meaning after 3000 years.

That in the Soviet Sionist times they tried to undermine the history of Armenia, is completely in accordance with their anti-nationalistic, Zionist ideology. Thus, they would fabricate history claiming that Georgians, "Azeris" and Armenians were all equally descendants of "Urartians" which is 48-carat, unpolished bullshit.

Turks claim ALL the languages came from Turkish and ALL civilizations were Turkish in origin.

This is not because they know they are garbage and have civilization envy, hell no. It's to justify their miserable, illegal, undeserved, destructive, undesired and unwanted presence on other peoples' territory. They have absolutely no affinity whatsoever with all those peoples and if any one of them had survived, they would have been exterminated or Turkified.


#34 Hellektor

Hellektor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Location:Iran

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:20 PM

QUOTE(Eurocentric @ Jan 24 2007, 09:58 AM) View Post

You missed the point. The word Ararat is as foreign as is the word Urartu. One is Assyrian the other is the Hebrew rendition of the Assyrian found in the Bible. The people of Urartu themselves called their land Bianili.
That's the fault of Armenians who never seem to be able to differentiate myth from history.
Have you read Vahan Kurkjian's History of Armenia?

For a more up-to-date version of Armenian history, I suggest you get hold of a couple of works by Artak Movsessian, true, still in his thirties but free from Soviet Sionist bullshit polishing, distory fabrication.

Not all of his works have been translated into English, so non-Armenians like yourself have to wait for some time. There are one or two available in English though.


#35 Zartonk

Zartonk

    Magnificent!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,764 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Մարդկության ու ճշմարտության միջև

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:31 PM

QUOTE
Urartu is a term, DECIPHERED from cuneiform inscriptions in the 20th century. It could have been read Ararta, Arartu, Urarta, etc. because cuneiform signs are syllabic and there's no certain way of pronouncing the words exactly as intended when they were written.


I hope the forum remembers that.

And also, Movsissian is an authority at the moment.

#36 Error 404

Error 404

    ERROR 404

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 881 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:37 PM

Wonder if the female name Bianka which I met in Europe a lot has something common with the Biaina.


#37 Hellektor

Hellektor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 509 posts
  • Location:Iran

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:40 PM

QUOTE(Zartonk @ Jan 24 2007, 02:31 PM) View Post

And also, Movsissian is an authority at the moment.

Thank god! He deserves it, he's a walking encyclopedia that reads cuneiform ջուր խմելու պէս.


#38 Eurocentric

Eurocentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE(Hellektor @ Jan 24 2007, 02:20 PM) View Post

For a more up-to-date version of Armenian history, I suggest you get hold of a couple of works by Artak Movsessian, true, still in his thirties but free from Soviet Sionist bullshit polishing, distory fabrication.


I'm sorry but Movsessian's work is not objective or academic while Kurkjian is both even though outn dated.

QUOTE

Not all of his works have been translated into English, so non-Armenians like yourself have to wait for some time. There are one or two available in English though.


My left testicle is more Armenian than most people that here.

#39 Eurocentric

Eurocentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE(Hellektor @ Jan 24 2007, 02:10 PM) View Post

Urartu is a term, DECIPHERED from cuneiform inscriptions in the 20th century. It could have been read Ararta, Arartu, Urarta, etc. because cuneiform signs are syllabic and there's no certain way of pronouncing the words exactly as intended when they were written.


Either way, it's foreign.

QUOTE

Urartu was the name given to Armenia by Akkadians.


Assyrian=Akkadian, prior to the adoption of Aramaic by neo-Assyrians.

QUOTE
Assyrians called Armenia Nairi, the land of rivers. (cf Nahr is Arabic for river: Bein ul Nahrein = Mesopotamia).


Yes.

QUOTE

The kings of Urartu called their kingdom Biaina, the word that has changed and become Van, thus kingdom of Biaina = kingdom of Van. Compare Erebuni = Yerevan, aban = avan, abeli = aveli, all words that have the same meaning after 3000 years.


Yes. Kingdom of Van or Kingdom of Bianili/Biayna/Biania etc. is fine. Kingdom of Ararat is stupid.

QUOTE
That in the Soviet Sionist times they tried to undermine the history of Armenia, is completely in accordance with their anti-nationalistic, Zionist ideology. Thus, they would fabricate history claiming that Georgians, "Azeris" and Armenians were all equally descendants of "Urartians" which is 48-carat, unpolished bullshit.

Turks claim ALL the languages came from Turkish and ALL civilizations were Turkish in origin.

This is not because they know they are garbage and have civilization envy, hell no. It's to justify their miserable, illegal, undeserved, destructive, undesired and unwanted presence on other peoples' territory. They have absolutely no affinity whatsoever with all those peoples and if any one of them had survived, they would have been exterminated or Turkified.


Yeah, but nobody pays much attention that crap anyway.

#40 Eurocentric

Eurocentric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts

Posted 24 January 2007 - 02:23 PM

QUOTE(Error 404 @ Jan 24 2007, 02:37 PM) View Post

Wonder if the female name Bianka which I met in Europe a lot has something common with the Biaina.


lol no smile.gif

http://www.behindthe...php?name=bianca

BIANCA
Gender: Feminine

Usage: Italian, Romanian

Italian cognate of BLANCHE. Shakespeare used characters named Bianca in 'The Taming of the Shrew' and 'Othello'.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users