[Twilight Bark]

Dear Hagop,
I agree with Sasun's concerns and perspective. While you may have good reasons for your frustration and anger, please understand that we are not specialists here, we are not the cause of your frustration, and I am not aware of anyone in this forum who has an axe to grind in the field of Armenology. If you could post relevant exerpts from the feuding Armenologists, I am sure many people here would be genuinely interested. Also, if you could provide pointers to (or exerpts from) studies that show the mainstream characterization of Urartu to be false, it would be great. Please relax; you are (mostly) among friends. You are unlikely to be aware of this, but I went through significant trouble to obtain a copy of Jensen's book specifically because I knew you were interested in finding it. I relayed it to you through a mutual acquaintance. I may not agree with everything you say, but I don't doubt your sincerity and your passion for things Armenian. Many here are interested in those subjects but do not have the resources or the time to invest in them. If you have, please do us a favor and share what you know. So please relax and focus more on specific information.
Twilight Bark

[hagopn]

Dear Friend,

Whoever you are, I thank you for getting me that copy of Jensen's book through our intermediary. He would not tell me you name for a strange reason, as he claimed that you wished to remain anonymous! I certainly wish you would not remain anonymous, since that book is indeed a valuable gift.

We studied the content with another individual (to whom I gave the copy) who had working knowledge of German for quite a long time. I don't know if you have ever looked at the contents of that book, but it is an amazing analysis of the Hittite language that unabashedly compares the Hittite language with Armenia.

I certainly will publish more direct material when the time comes. I have compiled enough material for a fairly large website. I have not given up on my goal to sting the establishment for ignoring key pieces of evidence that prove Armenian existence on Armenian land prior to any other ethnicity even being recorded in the region.

I have in fact mentioned some resources, although I have not posted excerpts. The three below are among the most valuable currently:

1. Artak Movsesian, He has many works, and his latest on the writing systems is an intensive study. He is a professor of history at YSU and a respected scholar.

2. Hovik Nersisian's "Hay Zhoghovrdi Petakanutyan yev Patmutyan Akunknerits." Nersisian is a respected scholar and researcher who has been published in various periodicals including "Alik" (of the Armenian Union herein LA). He has also made many televisions appearances, thrilling audiences with his amazing storytelling style of conveying complex historical data. I have known this man for 8 years now, and I have thoroughly enjoyed each and every meeting we have had. I am currently working with some dedicated people to produce narrative documentaries presenting he and other academics.

3. Martiros Kavoukjian/Gavoukjian and his "Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer" is an amazingly rich source of information on all the work that has been done with regards to Armenian presence in pre-Artashesian times.

Of the three, my opinion is that Nersesian is actually the most accomplished. He excels in all forms of archaic Persian languages as well, making him an invaluable resource to Armenians and humanity. He has in fact published articles on word origins that have been accepted by Colombia University scholars (where he has an honorary post/title) as well as the Hrachya Ajarian Institute. His knowledge on the Avesta is unsurpassed even among Iranian circles, and he is frequently invited to give lectures are Iranian academic events.

However, Artak Movsesian is progressing fast and is in fact showing to ve a very strong intellect able to absorb tremendous amounts of information. Keep in mind that Hovik Nersesian has been researching on Armenology subjects for a little under 50 years now, but Artak Movsesian is only 37 or 38 years old. He has tremendous potential, and my fear is that he will be shut out by our lackeys here.

This post has been edited by hagopn: 25 November 2003 - 02:14 AM

[Arpa]

hagopn, on Nov 25 2003, 02:41 AM, said:

This title by Artak Movsesian, "Barepasht Arganeri Ashkharakalutiune," is also a very good source on pre-Artashesian Armenia.

http://narek-store.c...exid=6J64YKUR9V

Hagop,
Is the transliteration correct?
"Arga"?
Is it not supposed to be "ARQA" i.e Ayb Re Qe Ayb?
It is common knowledge that "arqa" is a substitute to "tagavor/king". Ajarian meanders and stops short of equating it to the Greek "arch" as in "archbishop/archangel". I don't understand his logic but the Websters defines "arch" as from the Greek- "archos=ruler".
Is that really the way the title of the book is?
This may have very little with the main topic on hand but when we retransliterate to the mesropian orthography "arga" would become Ayb Re Gim Ayb which makes little sense if any.
Back to the main purpose of the highly illuminating (I know how much you like that term)topic.
I am sure that transliteration was not done by an Hamshentsi as you can see, even if they may be classified as "western" they seem to use classical Armenian transliteration. :) :)

[bellthecat]

hagopn, on Nov 25 2003, 04:43 AM, said:

Well, all that aside, the topic remains:

Historiography, especially when dealing with ancient periods, requires rigorous honesty.

I was mentored by a great scholar (oops!, Jewish) when studying in college. His golden rules on historical analysis were sound and are still applicable:

1. You cannot ever assume "parallels" to modern eras and pretend they are fully applicable to the past period you are studying.

2. You must, with absolute rigor, take account of all the existing primary evidence.

3. Understand that you cannot escape the irony of bias due to the lack of solid chronological data from those periods in history.

4. You must put aside "maintream" prejudices in order to successfully analyze the situation.

Hmmm... but Hagopn, you seem to have broken quite a few of those rules so far!

About your comment on alleged "anti-Armenian propaganda" from Germany - all the serious early 20th century academic work on Armenian culture and art originated in Germany - by people such as such as Bachmann, or Strzygowski. And, several generations earlier, it was a German, Shultz, who was responsible for the "discovery" of Urartu, and who paid for that discovery with his life.

Also, it appears to me that you are the one who is assuming parallels with the modern era. Tell me, what do you think an Armenian from 500bc actually was? In what regions did he live? and in what regions did he not live? And did he consider himself to be an Armenian? And in what way do you consider that 500bc Armenian (or, for that matter, a 700bc Urartian) to be related to an modern Armenian?

About my use of the word "obscure". I'm in no position to take a trip to northern Iran to view such and such cuniform inscription, or spend large amounts of money to build up a library of very hard to locate books, or (even if I had) I couldn't suddenly be able to read Russian or Armenian. Nor do I live near one of the few libraries in the world that would have such works. If you are fortunate enough to be able to do all that then good for you, but for most of the rest of us it will all remain "obscure" until you start to put something down beyond sloganising.

At the very least, start to put dates against the authors you are citing. I doubt that much that has been written about Urartu that is more than 30 years old can contain anything substantially accurate - simply because the field was not well explored. Have any of the people you have cited made use of material found during the many recent excavations in Turkey, all of which would count as primary evidence?

[DominO]

hagopn, on Nov 25 2003, 12:35 AM, said:

As to the English, let him post in his first language, and perhaps someone can translate our correspondances back and forth.  Otherwise, I will consider the repeated "demand for clarification" followed after multiple re-clarifications as a sign of badgering!

My problem is not your English, I understand pretty well everything you are saying, my problem is that you refer to names and names but do not provide any quotations, at the end you finish by presenting an article about the distortion of Armenian history. OK right, but again, what is your point? When I write something in forums(which I did very frequently) I do not say people get this work that work and then name persons, without quoting, without bringing the evidences they provide(authors), if I were to do like you, why would I write? I mean, your posts sounds like a book back bibliography pages.

So, Urartians are related ro Armenians? OK! lets start with this argument, lets provide evidences, quotations etc... it is not to us to search to understand you, it is to you to provide the evidences for us.

This post has been edited by Fadix: 25 November 2003 - 12:20 PM

[MJ]

As to the history department of YSU, or its ilk in the Academy of Sciences of Armenia, it definitely has lately lived up to the standards advocated and set by the History Department of the Communist Party of USSR, on the foundations of which it has been built.

And if the times had not changed, the same people who so passionately "uphold the dignity and honor of the Armenian history and academic integrity," would have been on the forefront of the crusade to “defeat the propagandists of imperialism" on behalf of the Communist Party of USSR or, at least, "proletariat."

What else can be added to these thoughts is the incredible resemblance of this segment of "Armenian ideological shakeup" to the one where the Russian neo-communists and neo-Nazis have been declared as the "healthy forces of Russia."

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

This post has been edited by Sasun: 25 November 2003 - 10:18 PM

[hagopn]

bellthecat, on Nov 25 2003, 03:39 PM, said:

About your comment on alleged "anti-Armenian propaganda" from Germany - all the serious early 20th century academic work on Armenian culture and art originated in Germany - by people such as such as Bachmann, or Strzygowski. And, several generations earlier, it was a German, Shultz, who was responsible for the "discovery" of Urartu, and who paid for that discovery with his life.

Also, it appears to me that you are the one who is assuming parallels with the modern era. Tell me, what do you think an Armenian from 500bc actually was? In what regions did he live? and in what regions did he not live? And did he consider himself to be an Armenian? And in what way do you consider that 500bc Armenian (or, for that matter, a 700bc Urartian) to be related to an modern Armenian?

About my use of the word "obscure". I'm in no position to take a trip to northern Iran to view such and such cuniform inscription, or spend large amounts of money to build up a library of very hard to locate books, or (even if I had) I couldn't suddenly be able to read Russian or Armenian. Nor do I live near one of the few libraries in the world that would have such works. If you are fortunate enough to be able to do all that then good for you, but for most of the rest of us it will all remain "obscure" until you start to put something down beyond sloganising.

At the very least, start to put dates against the authors you are citing. I doubt that much that has been written about Urartu that is more than 30 years old can contain anything substantially accurate - simply because the field was not well explored. Have any of the people you have cited made use of material found during the many recent excavations in Turkey, all of which would count as primary evidence?

Steve,

I will respond by paragraphs, and your questions are fair (although some of them are irrelevant). However, I will consider te constant blare about "no material" from my end as badgering. Quite frankly, I have given more source material on this topic that any one of you.

1. First, you are quoting from an article written by someone else that I have posted. The chap I quoted is a young man from Canada who is pretty involved in this topic. He has knowledge of much of the same material I do becuase I have known the chap personally for many years, and the confusion is understable. I confused you with another Steve as well due to your similar mindsets and writing style.

I would not characterize the early work done as necessarily pro or anti-Armenian. Work on "Indo-German" civilization began, and, as a matter of course, Armenian was taken into account. Franz Mueller was the one who started the entire trend, and it was indeed "positive" for Armenians and other "members of the IE" family that such research did take place. Jensen was in fact part of this overall trend with the enthusiastic research done on the Hittites. That does not make the later "paradigm shift" as described by Hilmar Kaiser disappear as a reality (his work has been discussed on this forum, although in an grossly superficial manner), and indeed German policy toward Armenians proved to follow that later anti-Armenian paradigm! The unfortunate reality is that Sussnizki's faction (to put it succinctly) eventually won out mostly due to support from pro-Turkish elements in the military and finance sectors (there are primary sources to substantiate this). All later scholarship began to submerge Armenians into obscurity (not that the material from the rpevious era was always very accurate).

2. There are certain "parallels" that cannot be avoided. First, they were human with beatings heart and strong feelings of ancestral worship. The entire mythology that emanates from that region concentrates on ancestry, and about "which god belonged to whom, and who is descended from which god-head" and so on. This was probably true even in 5,000 b.c. It is a clear outcropping of early totemism (which is, again, at the core ancestral worship), and the winning tribe (that was probably related to those it subdued) became the "nobility" of the given region. Things look more solid in the "Urartuan" era: i.e. If Khorenatsi's testimony of contemporary recount of history is honest (and I don't see any reason why it would not be), then "Aram" already had linguistic policies throughout his realm, and that is indeed described as greater Armenia. Let the honest geographer give the details, and in fact there is a Shirakatsi border delineation posted in this forum by Arpa, I believe.

The "parallels" that I don't see as valid are the so-called "political parallels" used as "templates" when describing the Armenian ethnogenesis. Like I said, the gaps leave room for "opinion," and the may the strongest opinion with the most honest approach win.

3. That is a probably a problem you have to solve on your own if you are in a rush to learn about this. Try not to blame others for having a better opportunity to sit down with the scholars and for having some material at their disposal. In case you have missed it, I don't have possession of Jensen's book at this point, and, as you might have witnessed, Jensen's book was not come by very easily. I consider myself fortunate in that sense, also on the fact that I live in Los Angeles where literature is abundant.

But you do have a legitimate complaint. Resources on such topics are hard to come by, but, then again, that should reflect not on me but on high powered and highly budgeted "establishment institutions" that try their best to ignore such material. Think about it before pouncing on the small guy.

4. Artak Movsesian's publications are new, ranging in dates from 1996 to 2003, and the title I gave on this forum was printed 3 months ago. Martiros Kavoukjian's works span from 1976 to 1982. Armenia, Subartu and Sumer was printed in 1982. OK, it has been 22 years for him, and he passed away in 1988. Hovik Nersesian's "Hay Zhoghovrdi Petakanutyan yev Patmutyan Akunknerits." was published in 2001! Therefore, the material is relatively fresh.

The irony is that the "tertiary sources" that are used as "factual material" by the "evidence omissionists" are at the latest 50 years old. You take your pick.

A good example of neglect on behalf of the "establishment": Ebla was excavated in 1974-1976 ld by Paolo Mattiae. Giovanni Pettinato was the scholar who later led the organization to analyze and decipher all the material recovered. The ONLY Armenian historian to even take into account in any serious manner the Armenia related discoveries as their contemporary was Martiros Kavoukjian. Hovanissian's "history" in two volumes never takes into account the startling discoveries.

This post has been edited by hagopn: 25 November 2003 - 04:43 PM

[hagopn]

Arpa, on Nov 25 2003, 01:53 PM, said:

Hagop,
Is the transliteration correct?
"Arga"?

No, it's wrong, but I copied it on a rush from the Narek site.

[hagopn]

Domino, on Nov 25 2003, 05:35 PM, said:

My problem is not your English, I understand pretty well everything you are saying, my problem is that you refer to names and names but do not provide any quotations, at the end you finish by presenting an article about the distortion of Armenian history. OK right, but again, what is your point? When I write something in forums(which I did very frequently) I do not say people get this work that work and then name persons, without quoting, without bringing the evidences they provide(authors), if I were to do like you, why would I write? I mean, your posts sounds like a book back bibliography pages.

So, Urartians are related ro Armenians? OK! lets start with this argument, lets provide evidences, quotations etc... it is not to us to search to understand you, it is to you to provide the evidences for us.

Quotes? Sure: This from the preface from Martiros Gavoukjian's book entitled "Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer," and it pretty much covers the "point" that he tries to make in his book. Enjoy!

PREFACE

The hypothesis that the homeland of the parent Indo?European language was in Europe and that the Indo?European?speaking peoples of Asia Minor and the Armenian Highland were migrants has become so widespread and has occupied such a firm position in scholarship, resulting in rigid thinking, that any proof or evidence that contradicts it is either rejected or ignored.

This is the reason why uncertainties and dead?end situations have been created in questions related to the origin and ethnic identity of the ancient Indo?European?speaking peoples of Asia Minor and the Armenian Highland, and the history of their interrelations with the ancient peoples of the Near East, particularly those of Mesopotamia, has been distorted or left shrouded in darkness.

In our previous works we had invited the particular attention of our readers on Armani, mentioned by Naram?Sin, bringing forth the formation and the etymology of that name. In view of the importance this question bears upon the ancient history of the Armenian Highland and Mesopotamia, we have pursued our investigations further along this line and have discovered new and significant data that help to elucidate the problem of the location and ethnic identity of Armani. All these have been incorporated here along with certain other points discussed earlier.

We shall investigate here the problem of the identity of the Subarians, the Armani?Subari connections and the Armani?Subari?Sumer relations. We shall mention the evidences supplied by the famous Sumerian epic tale that speaks about the interrelations between Enmerkar, the king of the Sumerian city of Erech (Uruk), and the king of the still unknown city of Aratta, around the beginning of the third millennium B.C., and for the first time we shall draw the attention of the scholars to the fact that Aratta has been the oldest state in the Armenian Highland, particularly in the Ayrarat district.(1)

Again for the first time we shall bring forth in this study some very old data from cuneiform writings regarding the origin of the Ervanduni family and their name, stressing that the state of Armina of the Ervanduni dynasty has been the continuation of the Urartian kingdom.

As these problems were researched, it naturally became necessary to investigate also the questions related to the Hurrians, the time of their appearance in Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highland, the spreading of their language, as well as the origin of the name Hurri.

We shall also include our extended observations pertaining to the geographical, mythological and linguistico?cultural interrelations of the Indo?European, Subarian, Semitic, and Sumerian peoples of the Near East and to other related problems.

I would like, here, to express my thanks to Professors I. Gelb, S. Kramer, P. Matthiae, G. Pettinato, 1. Diakonoff, M. Astour, S. Eremian, E. Khanzadian, G. Tiratsian, and to all the other scholars whom I have mentioned in this book for the valuable help their works have provided.

[hagopn]

MJ, on Nov 25 2003, 05:44 PM, said:

As to the history department of YSU, or its ilk in the Academy of Sciences of Armenia, it definitely has lately lived up to the standards advocated and set by the History Department of the Communist Party of USSR, on the foundations of which it has been built.  

And if the times had not changed, the same people who so passionately "uphold the dignity and honor of the Armenian history and academic integrity," would have been on the forefront of the crusade to “defeat the propagandists of imperialism" on behalf of the Communist Party of USSR or, at least, "proletariat."

What else can be added to these thoughts is the incredible resemblance of this segment of "Armenian ideological shakeup" to the one where the Russian neo-communists and neo-Nazis have been declared as the "healthy forces of Russia."

This portion was edited out by Sasun. I will re-enter the paragraph in a rephrased version. The fact remains that the above response in quotes is an appeal to prejudice in the McCarthyist anti-communist style, and such appeals to emotional response are safely categorized as politicized propaganda for the sole purpose of character assassination. I insist that this be included because this method of propaganda is an important element that is part and parcel of the "argumentation style" used by the "western Armenology" establishment. See the Levon Avdoyan example below.

As to the wild accusatory speculations (again, pre-emptive propaganda strike typical of CIA) of "who would probably be what and when," although I doubt very much that Aivazian or Movsesian (knowing their actual background well) would succumb to be "Soviet mouthpieces," (which they have shown to not have been generationally, but that is another story), the same argument can be made against the same "Armenologists" criticized by Aivazian. We are ironically seeing a nationalist spirit (and individuals) that has been repressed manifest itself, and it is a genuine one.

(We did see the "Alexander Varpetyan" sort of Nietchszean nonsense also spring up early in the game, but that subsided and withered away along with the reputation of its chief protagonist; good riddens.)

As to the truly guilty parties:

For an example of such: Suny was indeed caught making 180 degree turns in ideology concerning Artsax in Aivazian's book, and that paradigm "shift" in Suny coincided precisely with that of the US State Department's position on Artsax. Suny, in effect, was caught with his propagandist's pants down, and it is a fact that Suny simply cannot escape. Aivazian's book is soon to be published in English, but it is available in Armenian in its entirety on the website I have listed below.

What political "dirt" do we have on Aivazian besides the fact that he is a nationalist (ooh, that bad, bad disease of ancestral respect, self-respect, and cultural continuity!)? The answer is none. Ironically, far from being a "mouthpiece," he is extremely critical of the current government and the past government of Ter Petrossian. Read his articles at www.artsakhworld.com/Armen_Aivazian/MainPage_Eng/MainPage.htmland and get a great treat. I especially liked the following (depressingly realistic but poignant) article: http://www.artsakhwo...rrer/index.html

The YSU defended Aivazian after lengthy debates on the matter, where all of the information was made available. Suny and the others even had a chance to defend themselves, but, instead, the "chief in backlash" Avdoyan started making bombastic comments about "intellectual terrorists" blah blah. In essence, Avdoyan blew it for all of them, in fact, for the entire collective. Although I did see that Aivazian's book was full of flaws, the points for which he was attacked were absolutely irrelevant and style of attack on the young man purely of a propaganda nature.

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

This post has been edited by hagopn: 25 November 2003 - 11:12 PM

[hagopn]

Arpa, on Nov 25 2003, 01:53 PM, said:

hagopn, on Nov 25 2003, 02:41 AM, said:

This title by Artak Movsesian, "Barepasht Arganeri Ashkharakalutiune," is also a very good source on pre-Artashesian Armenia.

http://narek-store.c...exid=6J64YKUR9V

Hagop,
Is the transliteration correct?
"Arga"?
Is it not supposed to be "ARQA" i.e Ayb Re Qe Ayb?
It is common knowledge that "arqa" is a substitute to "tagavor/king". Ajarian meanders and stops short of equating it to the Greek "arch" as in "archbishop/archangel". I don't understand his logic but the Websters defines "arch" as from the Greek- "archos=ruler".
Is that really the way the title of the book is?
This may have very little with the main topic on hand but when we retransliterate to the mesropian orthography "arga" would become Ayb Re Gim Ayb which makes little sense if any.
Back to the main purpose of the highly illuminating (I know how much you like that term)topic.
I am sure that transliteration was not done by an Hamshentsi as you can see, even if they may be classified as "western" they seem to use classical Armenian transliteration. :) :)

Now, back to my dear long-time friend, Arpa.

I miss your posts on other forums, and so I came here to read about word origins and other wonderful topics that you always brought to light.

The Hamshentsi are once again proof of the Grigor Artsruni postulate that "western Armenian" is an artificial politicized nomenclature. He didn't believe it, and neither did Portugalian. It is practially non-existent in native Armenian speaking regions as a "native linguistic" entity. Aksel Bakounts also hated that name and the idea of having two "official vernacular languages," and he berated the "western" as a mere dialect trying to be an official idiom.

[Arpa]

Since you enjoy word games here is a bird for you to pluck.
Below is what started the whole thread; It is not only topical it is also timely.

http://armenians.com...t=0&#entry16160

TUrchun.
You will notice that I spelled the word with a U instead of "trchun".
We may remember when about Thanksgiving time I wrote an article about that bird and I cited some of the names various people call it. Armenians call it "hndkahav" (Indian bird) just as many ascribe it to some alien and exotic origin. Kheghj trchun! Why not! After all "Turk" and "Turkey" are far from being an eandearing term. I also mentioned that the Italian/Latin word for that bird is "tacchina"(female) and "tacchino"(male). Note that in the Latin and Italian the "cch" sounds like K. Yet it is tantalizingly curious that that Italian word looks and sounds so much like the Armenian "trchun" (flyer/bird).
Was that bird first identified by the Armenians and having no name for it they simply called it a "bird/trchun" and the Romans, having first seen it in Hayastan accepted the term as such?
One may also remember that the reasons given for the English word "turkey" is explained that the bird was first seen in Anatolia and was known as "turkey hen".
Turkey may be a "strange bird" in more ways than one, not in the least that it will go the way of the dodo and become extinct. And when that happens (soon) this bird will sing "Trcheyi mtkov tun, Ur im mayrn (Hayastan)e artun ......."
Goble goble to you too

Alright, now I am ready for the Kangaroo court.
Does anybody know why I used the word "kangaroo"?

[Arpa]

Oh! I forgot to add that I don't like cross posting, i.e. subjects should stay within their proper topic. This thread started as politico-historical and should remain so. I would like for those who'd like to respond to the last post to please go to the language section, it was originally posted around Feb-March 2003.
Thank you.

[hagopn]

Interesting footnote from Gavoukjian

Khorenatsi has preserved a concrete testimony that substantiates the meaning of Armavir as ‘Arma’s city or Arma’s house.’ He writes: “... Armais built a house for his habitation on a hill on the bank of the river and called it Arma t it after his own name.” (I- 12.) Here it is explicitly stated that Armais called the city he built Arma-vir after his own name Arma(-is). Some authors still attribute Armavir, erroneously, to the Ervandunis, for the reason that the name Armavir contains the stem Arma (of Armais), the basic component of the name Arma-ni (Arme-ni >Armen) by which are designated the Armenian land and people, and that the hypothesis of “the migration of the Armens” does not allow them to accept the existence of the Armens in Armenia before the fall of the Urartian dynasty. Therefore, they do not accept that Armais was Urartian (we have already shown in our previous works that Armais is Argishti). Although the Ervanduni, have kept Armavir as their capital for some time and have carried out some constructions there, they are not its founders. Those who attribute the founding and the naming of Armavir to the Ervandunis, should either accuse Khorenatsi for lying and having fabricated the name Armais, or they must show that among the Ervandunis there was at least one king by the name Arma (Armais). Obviously, they cannot do this, because no such king has existed in that dynasty. This shows the impasse in which the proponents of the “migration” hypothesis are found, the baseless and arbitrary interpretations they are forced to offer and the distortions they make in these important and decisive questions related to the ancient history of the Armenian people.

[TashnagZinvor]

Are the Ionians Greeks? Are the Greeks of today Macedonians? Are the Russians slavs? Were the slavs or the Urals Russians? Are Armenians today Urartu? Were the Urartus called Armenians?

[dat-ka]

Let me just state couple of facts:
- Urartu and its people are not considered Armenian by any of the leading organisations including UNESCO, there must be a reason for that.
- Urartu language is a Caucasian language and after the fall of Urartu people did not vanish as it was stated by someone earlier, but most of the region was inhabited by Caucasian tribes chiefly Cappadocians and Meskhs.
- 99% of scholars belive that the area from lake Urmia to middle of now is Turkey and all the way north to southern Russia was inhabited by Caucasian tribes, with many settlements further west up to Northern Italy and Spain (Etruscans and Basques)
- From Bible and Assyrian writting we know that region all the way upto lake Van was inhabited by Caucasian tribes Chlaybs (invented metal and steel), Makrons, Mesheks, Nakhs (lived round Sevan and Nakh - ichevan areas) etc etc
- Most scholars ancient and modern including Armenian state that Armenians came to the region from another place, most believe it to be round nothern Syria, Lebanon region, closer to Cilicia sometime between 1500BC-600BC
- Harvard University papers state that Armenian language first appears to be used in the area of Urartu around 600BC.
- There is a theory that Armenians were requested to Urartu as tradesmen, while Urartians were warriors and scholars, then when Urartu dissolved Armenians made up a large proportion especially in the southern regions ie closer to their original homeland. This structure is true for most countries England and Netherlands used Jews to trade, in Malasia and Singapore region Chinese do all the trade, while from more recent history we know that many Armenians were requested by Georgia and parts of Iran even as late as 16th century to improve trade as Georgians for example were mostly scholars or soldiers, and there were no art of trade, there.
- If you read such scholars as REGINALD AUBREY FESSENDEN
(link: http://www.radiocom.net/Deluge/), you can see that word Urartu is from two of the Caucasian tribes Al- and Ur-, which were the orginal tribes of the whole region.

[hagopn]

Let me just state couple of facts:
- Urartu and its people are not considered Armenian by any of the leading organisations including UNESCO, there must be a reason for that.

UNESCO? Who cares? What is the "reason?" The is reason the same that Discover Channel aired a television program, that Arpa knows about very well, and in that program were shown Khatchkars with clearly Armenian inscriptions. Discovery narrative read "And here we have cross stones with an ancient and unintelligible script."

In other words, the "reason" is political. Scholarship is not unbiased, especially in this polarized world, and Armenians are definite victims of pro-Turkish revisionism in the "west" to a remarkable degree.

- Urartu language is a Caucasian language and after the fall of Urartu people did not vanish as it was stated by someone earlier, but most of the region was inhabited by Caucasian tribes chiefly Cappadocians and Meskhs.
- 99% of scholars belive that the area from lake Urmia to middle of now is Turkey and all the way north to southern Russia was inhabited by Caucasian tribes, with many settlements further west up to Northern Italy and Spain (Etruscans and Basques)

Ah, now we have a pro-Georgian propagandist. "Urartu Language" has never been established as having been a Caucasian language except in Diakonov's anti-Armenian wet dreams, and the totality of the cuneiform and hieratic languages are not yet fully deciphered. Ivanov stopped working with Gamkrelidze precisely on this point, becuase the latter was biased and wishful in his approach on that one point, despite his brilliance as a linguist. Ivanov established that the Indo-Eureopean language's origins were in Van's vicinity, and this clearly makes Georgian or other "caucasian" tribes no where in Van's vicinity, since they do not belong to that language family.

About Georgian "credibility" in historical matters: Georgian revisionists also insist, to this day, that Sayat Nova was "Georgian." They also insist, the "nationalist" (fascist) ones, that "Armenians have had no influence on their culture." Georgian is incredibly influenced by Armenian culture, but especially it is influenced by the language. The various Georgian languages contain large numbers of borrowed Armenian terms, and this has been long ago established. The so-called "basis" for the "caucasianization" of Urartu is precisely this linguistic influence of, yes, Armenian on the Georgian language.

Don't get me wrong: I think Georgians have a wonderful culture, and in some ways are treating what they inhertied from Armenians in a much more respectful manner. My disagreement is with fascistic anti-Armenian tendencies driven by their Stalinist legacy.

- From Bible and Assyrian writting we know that region all the way upto lake Van was inhabited by Caucasian tribes Chlaybs (invented metal and steel), Makrons, Mesheks, Nakhs (lived round Sevan and Nakh - ichevan areas) etc etc

The "Chalybes" are never associated with "Caucasians" in the Bible. The mysterious "Chalybes" themselves were thought as having been very much so Armenian in origin by the foremost Hittitologist, Peter Jensen, and even their name states it, as Jensen also thought. "Chalybes" is the German transliteration for the name "Khalybes" of the Greeks, and the name's prefix is already indicative of its Armenian origins.

The very name "Khalde" is of Armenian origin, and it can easily be proven with the dialectic morphs of the name "khay." Even Georgian epic (Rustaveli) states the connection of "khay" for Armenian as pronounced by the Georgians. In other words, the Georgian chroniclers, before Georgian scholarship took on its quasi-fascist state, acknowledged Armenian influence on their civilization.

The root "Nakh" in Armenian means "first" or "pre." The word "Nakharar" means (literally) "first leader." Nakh-Ijevan is a complex word of one simple root and yet one mopre complex word, Ijevan. Ijevan is composed for "descent" or "Ej", "Ijanel" (in classical grammatical form), and "-van" is a suffix declension of "avan" which means "abode." The word "Ijevan" is used to name the location where "angels descended." "Ejmiatzin" is the actual location where Armenian Christians believe Christ descended. Nakh-Ijevan is the markation of the location leading to the "Ijevan" of "Christ." It was not called "Nakhitchevan" in pre-Chrsitian periods.

In other words, Nakhitchevan has nothing to do with Georgians.

The "Makrons" and the "Meshekhs" sound very artificial or altered. Cite the location in the "Bible" that this is stated.

- Most scholars ancient and modern including Armenian state that Armenians came to the region from another place, most believe it to be round nothern Syria, Lebanon region, closer to Cilicia sometime between 1500BC-600BC

This, of course, is a complete and utter lie that virtually no scholar accepts, not even anti-Armenian scholars. Even the Georgian linguist Gamkrelidze admitted that Armenians have been in Armenia long before 1,500 b.c.

- Harvard University papers state that Armenian language first appears to be used in the area of Urartu around 600BC.

Who cares? The so-called "Armenologists" at Harvard are mere followers of the revisionist Diakonov, and Diakonov is deiscredit as having outwardly Azeri and quite anti-Armenian biases. He has been caught as having been commissioned by the Azeris to manufacture a caucasian history, and this is very well known.

There is absolutely no proof of the above, and the more likely scenarios is outlined by, ironically, a Georgian linguist and a Russian linguist. The pair are Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz Gamkrelidze. They have both been adamant and in concordance about at least one thing, that the Armenian language is much older and its origins are definitely are in Armenia proper, in the area of Van and vicinity, to be specific. It has been established, therefore, that the IE family had its origins in Armenia. Now, if the indo-european language has older than 4000 b.c. roots, which is what is assumed by comparative linguistics that finds, interestingly, Indo-European words, and specifically Armenian words, in the Sumerian language or vis versa, means that the Armenian language itself developed at least at the time the Sumerians were around, which is at least circa 2,200-2,100 b.c. with the rise and fall of Lagash.

- There is a theory that Armenians were requested to Urartu as tradesmen, while Urartians were warriors and scholars, then when Urartu dissolved Armenians made up a large proportion especially in the southern regions ie closer to their original homeland. This structure is true for most countries England and Netherlands used Jews to trade, in Malasia and Singapore region Chinese do all the trade, while from more recent history we know that many Armenians were requested by Georgia and parts of Iran even as late as 16th century to improve trade as Georgians for example were mostly scholars or soldiers, and there were no art of trade, there.

there is no such theory except in the minds of wishful Turks and anti-Armenian fascists. In scholarship, there exists no such theory.

The obvious Georgian fascist's bias is evident here. Perhaps this Georgian fascist would like to know that even their bard Rustaveli was of Armenin origins. There is evidence, concrete evidence, as outlined by Church history, that even the Georgian writing system was developed by Armenians. Tiflis was a city virtually built by Armenians, and the last dynasty to rule Georgia was an Armenian Bargatuni (Bagration in Georgian) dynasty. The fact is that the Armenians were the elite of the Georgian kingdom for ages, but our fascist friends don't like to acknowldge this. Legimiate Georgian scholarship has openly stated this, and to their credit, they have managed to keep open dialog and cordial relations with Armenian scholarship.

Especially in the 15th century the Georgian landscape was all but dominated by Armenians in all strata of society. Most of the nobility in high ranks serving under the king were of Armenian origins. The King himself was of Armenian origins!


- If you read such scholars as REGINALD AUBREY FESSENDEN
(link: http://www.radiocom.net/Deluge/), you can see that word Urartu is from two of the Caucasian tribes Al- and Ur-, which were the orginal tribes of the whole region.

Right, and I am supposed to believe a "scholar" who thinks Armenians are a "semitic race."

Perhaps there is another Brooklyn Bridge for sale!~