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.
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.