hagopn

Arpa! Missed you very much. This thread brought to memory these topics, especially "Urartu", and compels me to write what's on my mind. The syllabic cuneiform designation of "RRT" has only been discovered on later Assyian sources, while most later Babylonian sources use the designation of "R-SH-T", (including the one at Behisitun, which is the "Babylonian" R-Sh-T and not later Assyrian "RRT") which some have transliterated it as "Urashtu", which means "Land of Fire." The three languages on the Behisitun rock are Elamite ("Harminuap"), Babylonian "Urashtu", and Persian "Armina" or "Arminiya". Both variants, "Uru-Atri" as well as "Ur-Ashtu" are well within indo-european lexicon, unless you have a blatantly anti-Armenian bias. "Atr, Atar" and "Asht" as in "Ashtanak" (which brings up the topic of Armenian to Pahlavi versus Pahlavi to Armenian influence) are still Armenian terms for "combustion, torch, pyre, fire" and so on. This makes one tend to re-evaluate Gavoukjian's assertions, that possibly influenced V. Ivanov who picked up on this, that Sumerian and Armenian coexisted for quite a long time and subsequently both languages influenced the subsequent Mesopotamian languages, which is the precise opposite of the current prevailing paradigm. Another variant is the "Uru-atri" which has the same roots of "locale/land" (uru) and "fire" (atri). The "Urartu" form seems to be entirely arbitrary and subjective. Sorry to sound too "linguistic" on this, but I can't find the other forum you proposed on this--

Վահե Ավետյանի Poltergeisti մեղքն է սաղ:

Oh, absolutely. They want noting to do with "nationalists," which essentially means "those who don't wish to turn their country into a financial province of the Anglo-Judeo [good label] Empire."

Hmm.. I wonder why that is bad for Armenians when it concern hsitory, then. hmmmmm

Give me a break! For the most it's like a Mohammad Club Gathering to see what Christian they can take a stab at.

Well, that's preferable people who take seriously the "theory" that "Armenians didn't exist until the Persians saw them."

I dont' trust this guy as a source either. That's probably not true. More than likely it was an American organization.

Perhaps your Americans had Vazgen killed. Remember, it was not only your friend Vazgen who got killed. it was, more importantly, the brains in the likely to be elected administration, Karen Demirchian who also got killed. Karen was strongly anti-IMF, anti-American control through its global loan-sharking system. KD was also against the irrational "supercapitalism" as he labeled it. karen also was totally against the "jrik economy" that is still being built in Armenia; i.e. Tourism, Gambling, Foodstuff/water. He wanted industry back, so he campaigned. He was then shot. I don't consider Vazgen to be the reason Karen was shot. I consider Karen to be the reason Vazgen was shot. vazgen was truly waking up from a looting slumber and coming the realization that without a stable domestic economy, without a full complement of its citizenry, his wealth in Armenia will depreciate in the end as well. I would opine to say that Demirchian was the reason the heavily Turkish-American connected Unianians murdered Vazgen. Kochar was simply too weak to resist this since his relations with Putin were not good - the latter at the time in the shadows already as background "acting president" Russia is the lesser of two evils for now. Russians want a stable Armenia, at least. Americans want an irrelevant and totally impotent Armenia.

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.

check this thread http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=81...art=#entry78917 Check the argument that went on between an Azeri posing as "Gino" and myself.

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.

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.

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.

That is part of a pattern to discredit Armenian claims on pretty much everything. There are so many outlandish articles at J-stor that deal with Armenian history where silly assumption after another is make "the orthodox view" simply due to the fact that a lie has been repeated many times. The rule on ancient history is that if you repeat a lie enough times and have enough "specialists" (most of whom, like Gelb, did not know Armenian), you have an "established view." The manner with which you are shut-out, much like watching Domino pretend to ignore what I write, is by being ignored or ridiculed in the trenches, prior to getting published. Now the Internet is evening the field a bit, but not by much as of yet.

With all due respect, you are "fighting" your own complexes. Nothing else. All who hold this position in such an immutable manner always have other issues. Your stated reason is "not to look like Turks and Azeris." Armenians are not making claims on lands they were not native to. Armenians are making claims to their own homeland, one to which there are more than enough links that date back beyond the so-called "Behisitun dating." Once again, let's not obsess ourselves with what other cultures do with hsitory as our benchmark. The fact is that there are strong links between the ancient Asia Minor cultures and Armenia. The facts that are there exceed in quantity to those who make assumptions on the existence of the Celts in parts of Europe and Great Britain, for example. The fact is that the linguistic migration is also under scrutiny, and the migraytion theories you have under your arm are increasingly discredited. The Armeno-origin theory is gaining weight, but the politicized academic circles refure to acknowledge it. Writing that survives is not the sole indicator. The main difference between Armenian and Phrygian in terms of remnants is the Hellenic influence, direct influence due to proximity, predates to the Armenian. Phyrigians were immersed in the cultural sphere of the hellenes much earlier than the Armenians, and thus the Phyrigians left behind what Armenians could not at that time. The hellenistic remnants in various parts of Armenia more strongly influenced by greek culture are also survivors. The fact is that they don't know how hellenized the remnants of Phrygian are, whether or not the latter was more akin to Armenian due to the lexical and grammatical affinity, or whether or not Phrygian was a dialect of Armenian-related Asia Minor languages (which they still cannot decide were of the satem or centum branches) later strongly influenced by Greek. This is an irony. You are trading the ancient past for the sake of the more current due to fears of Turkish and Azeri ridicule. There is no trade involved by the ones who want to see and examine what links Armenians have to the inhabitants of ARMENIA 3000 years ago, 4300 years ago, and so on. Ironically. distrortions start at a earlier era. The fact is that Armenian presence in the ancient world has given way to distortion of later periods. One example is the confusion between "Iranian" and "Armenian" even when dealing with remnants in the Shirvan region, what is now Kakhetia in Georgia, what is the entirety of southern Armenia, and so on. The degree and expanse of distortion is so great, one does not know where to start.

Because the facts point to the Armenian presence to that time. What is impressive about avoiding evidence?

Even if the criteria to being a homogeneous national grouping is the "identification" by another entity, most of whiom were primitive tribal marauders who had relativley recently obtained control of Sumerian cities, that is incorrect by at least 1635-1685 years. The first mention of an Armenian state was by Naram-sin on his campaign to the north in 2235 b.c. on a campaign memorial stellate. Armenians were more or less a confederate entity all the way up to the 11th century, even during the centralized state with its capital at Ani. So far as I know, Armenians are the sole people who are subjected to proving their history and existence by "foreign eyewitness accounts" as the primary method. For example, the Armenian king Aram mentioned by Movses of Khoren is clearly the "Urartuan" Aram. Claims by others is negated by the need to source from facts. Facts say that the probability of Armenian statehood dating beyond, way beyond, the Behisitun dating is very strongly supported despite the alleged absence of native testimony in written form. I use the term alleged to remind readers that Movses of Khoren did allude to a history that connected Armenians directly with Aram of the Bianili. As far as I have read, there is no ethnic differentiation between the "arratta groups" and the Hittite. The assumption by linguists, particularly before the topic was throughly politicized, is that all of Asia Minor was largley ethnolinguistically homogeneous. That has long ago been discredited. This is a long article by Gelb and Bonfante. I will read it. Past reading of Gelb has revealed a strong a bias in avoiding all data that directly point to Armenian existence in periods we are dealing with. Hittite has been established as a close language to Armenian long ago, since its decipherment. This topic has been covered on this forum many times.

Granted, but keep in mind that all parts of Armenia have the circle dance, all parts, no exception. it might seem authentic, but it is actually a rehashed Greek taverna (complete with the 19th century addition of the "krralnet") rendition of what was once Armenian repertiore. That's because the "rabiz" ignorant and illiterates that brought the "pop music" usually are illiterates who only knew Azeri songs "passed down from their fathers," like the "late grate" Aram ***aTrryanm "Nintendo extraordinaire". now we have "Aram Trran Version 2.5" coming out, maybe the grandchildren will come next, to complete the destruction/cultural suicide cycle. Let me correct you there: The middle eastern communities did manage to maintain quite well their traditions. The problems began in the 1970's when the new generations began to look "west," ironically staying customarily ignorant of the fact that the "west" itself is suffering from cultural bankrupcty and that their own brethren are working to maintain their distinctness precisely through culture (if not language). My mother's generation (born 1930's) was very well versed in dance, song, literature, to a degree that puts us to dire shame (or should). She was born in Haifa and raised in Aleppo. Ah, then you're two steps ahead of us in the tamzara--- There are all sorts of variations, and the form including the "bridge" is not a tradition carved in stone any more than Komitas' "compositions" as you note above. Armenian musicians tended to create variations based on multiple themes, and it would even become an endless rondo of themes on occasion. Melikian is the best authority to date on this, and his collections were purposefully focused on individual themes, and then were presented in their spontaneous improvisations and potpouri performances. The same goes with much of Komitas' collections. (All expressions of gratitude and thank yous aside--) My so-called "version" is incomplete for three reasons: Rush, Rush, and the Rush. No offense taken--- I understood what you meant, and responded with the reasons as to why we hopped on the train to reach the 4 minute mark.

These fake titles mean nothing.

The future of Armenian folk music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPjsBsz4trk Thank you DJs and Keyboard Players!!

Hah! It's been public property since at least the first domesticated cow on Armenian soil around 10,000 b.c.--

No, it just means that they are ignorant and have mostly forgotten their dances in the Khalkh (villager thrusted into urban) setting. A while back we had this "professor of music" from a university in california pretend that she sees "psychological reasons" as to why the Tigranakerttsi dance "solo with their hands to the sky," versus the Musa Lertsi who are "more grounded in their circle dances." it would be easier and more accurate to say that the urbanite has forgotten the dances.

Why do they sound as if they "own this halay?" Because they make is sound more "yazva zevzek?" Therefore, if you inject more nasal/ornamental yezan trik as "emotions" into something, then you "own it?" Turkish "culture" on Asia Minor is almost exclusively Armenian in origins, and this is especially true of the music. If you can find ethnographic material that demonstrates similar musical backgrounds among those taking their shit in yurts in Khazakhstan, then let me know. The odd meter dances are all, ALL Armenian in origin. Much of the damn Turkish Ottoman language is Armenian in origin.

Այ, այս մէկը լաւ կլինի, բայց ՁԱՅՆ ՉԿԱՅ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_NmjKPrY1o...feature=related Արթուրը մեր ամենա, ամենա լաւագոյններից է: Երկրորդ մաս http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxnd2lwalwY&NR=1

Yes, you are correct, the tempo starts fast from the beginning due to time constraints put on us by the producers (it had to be under 4 minutes in total. The second half of a 6/8 dance is not shown on this youtube version.) We were also told by the producers of the Telethon that we must be enthusiastic, loud, and fast, to keep with the "mood of the program." The producers they hired almost did not allow for this piece to be played. They wanted ALL ZURNA and DHOL, banging and buzzing away all day. Fortunately, some alternate sounds were squeezed in. You are correct, in the Armenian tradition, which is the case everywhere in Armenia for this dance, you start in a slow tempo, perhaps 80 per quarter note, nad increase to 144 or so per quarter note at the end. We had 2 rehearsals, and these guys did not know this piece. I had to improvise the easiest and simplest form I knew from childhood (my mother sang this version) and have the band learn it in 1 week (2 rehearsals). It's not the best performace to my desire, but it is better than any nintendo keyboard performance. At least it's a live band! The keyboard plays BRASS sounds that I didn't want, but that is the sickness of keyboard players: They think that they can make any sound, brass, strings, woodwinds, but they actuall can't do any thing except keyboard sounds with any competence. The greatest killer of Armenian culture by far has been the keyboard/sampler/synthesizer. The second biggest killer is the cheap minded DJ. I will be putting out these types of music more under control in the future. I am working on an ethnographic album now. There are really good dances recorded by Komitas and saniks. Also, the comment about "Komitas having composed" needs to be correct: Komitas COLLECTED folk music and later did arrangements for mainly Choir and Piano. Later still, the Aslamzian string quartet, which came to be eventually named the Komitas Quartet, popularized that sort of arrangement of COLLECTED FOLK MUSIC. In other words, KOMITAS does have Tamzaras written down as well, but his student, SPIRIDON MELIKIAN is the one that did more such work. He continued where Komitas left off when it came to DANCE FORMS and Dance music.