hagopn

CONSPIRACY: There is no need to debate about any "possibility" of conspiracy among cognizant adults. Conspiracy is the most integral part of any political endeavor, and especially if the ambitions are of global proportions, then the protagonists of any such ambition will conspire to reach their goals. If anyone knows of a general who does not keep secrets and does not "conspire" prior to and during a campaign, then I would like to have his name. If you have one at hand, then he probably did not make it to the history books due to having scored no victory. Political discussions are not for children. They are for adults ready to swallow the bitter reality of, yes, deceptions, subversions, and, yes, conspiracies. Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Revision and distortion are mutually inclusive when the systematized exclusion of key evidence is at the core of the methodology. This is in fact what I have repeatedly stated. The readers on this forum are free to substantiate claims made: Go search on the Internet. The information is freely available on all instances with the exception of the comments made by Movsesian. For that purpose, review a telecast of his interview made in Armenia on the Vardanank program. As to "red flags," yes the "red flag" has much to do with the distortion of Armenian history. As the matter of fact, the "red flag" behind the "iron curtain" is what has enabled the distorted versions of our history to go on unabated and uncontested for such a duration as to, ironically, "raise eyebrows" among dogmatized "establishmentarian" academics whenever objections to their fraudulent methods occur. Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Dear ArmenSarq, First, let me say a belated "welcome to HyeForum". There is a problem with your timeline, which is cited often. It equates the beginning of the Hye nation to when the foreign powers named us, instead of the time when we named ourselves. This is understandable since the preceding Urartu state dominating Eastern Anatolia and the territory of the modern Republic of Armenia was non-Armenian. So our historians wait until the devastated Urartu people assimilate into the Hye nation spreading eastward and "meet" the Persians as a "new" people. That is understandable, but inaccurate. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the Hittite client-kingdom of Hayasa-Azzi as the proper beginning of a coherent "Hye Azq". And they existed at least as early as 1350 BC, making our real beginnings at least 800 years earlier than the usually recited date. If, by some historical accident, the little piece of historical Armenia we have left today were situated in northeastern Anatolia, closer to the Hittite heartland instead of south Caucasus, our historians would probably take Hayasa more seriously and put it in its rightful place as our proper starting point. Today's reality seems to shape our "past" retroactively. Twilight Bark First of all, the "acceptance" of the Hayassa/Khayassa name as a form of Hay was the work of the pupil of Berich Hrozny, Nshan Martirossyan when the latter was studying under the former in Prague. Martirossyan was "puzzled" as to why his professor was so "adamantly and illogically against the acceptance of this obvious cognate." Well, dear friends, you think of it for yourselves as much as you please. My conclusion on the matter is that there are "interests" old and new, racial, imperial, sectarian, as well as financial, that would love to see the Armenian nation either permanently crippled and provincialized or entire off the map. Did it occur to anyone that the name "Hayassa" (assuming that the cuneiform suffix was deciphered correctly) was used by the Hittites? Has it also not occurred to anyone that only Armenians use the name "Hay" to denote an Armenian entity? Why, then, would teh Hittites use the Hay prefix to identify (fellow?) Armenians? As the matter of fact, Jensen makes this precise assumption, and that is why Jensen is shut out of current academic discussion on this topic.

I have not read your posts, but there are a few who enthusiastically" keep on repeating ad nauseam, despite solid and informative objections to the contrary that "there were no Armenians before 520 b.c.!" Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

I beg to differ only on one point for now: Armenians are anything but "insignificant," and that մակդիր of "insignificant nation" is also the wet dream of wishful imperialists. At the turn of the century Armenians were able to amass an estimated 300,000 on both the ottoman and the russian frontiers. We are as of yet not "insignificant," or at least, not yet. However, at this pace of ideological and, thus, psychological suicide headed by our own "career Armenologists" at the employ of the "global order," we are well on our way to assimilate out of existence. We might even "hypothesize" ourselves out of existence. Consider that the "elite" who shape the national psyche are now adopting (or have been adopting) a fatalistic and defeatist mindset. Our "balanced" foreign "friends" are also privy to this, at least those who keep on feeding us the faulty "migration theory" based on the Azero-sponsored meanderings of Diakonov and Pyatrovski on the "Urartu" concoction(historian Artak Movsesian has mentioned a few public instances where Diakonov has openly supported the Azeris in matters of historical revisionism.)

First of all, ignoring evidence is a breach of proper conduct, but that is what revisionists do best. Armenians are among the worst victms of this phenomenon. I would suggest you address that as well. Dishonesty should not be equated with "open-mindedness." As with everything else, translations are not easy to accomplish. A copy of it is in possession of a friend who studies the Hittite Dictionary publsihed by the Unviersity of Chicago. The translation was partly done in 1999, but the project was stopped short due to a tragic event. There are 3 interesting points to make about this University of Chicago: 1. It is an institution that is constantly accused of collaboration with the Illuminati by numerous authors on the Internet (and even the most outlandish sounding theory has its basis in some empirical analysis). It is in fact interesting that the University of Chigago does house revisionists: Ronald Grigor Suny, for example, is a very accomplished revisionist, and his latest "instant" 44 page rebuttal to Armen Aivazian, which is a concoction of imperialistic biases presented as "objectivity," is an amazing piece of work designed to discredit the entire notion of Armenian nationalism prior to the "soviet satrapization." 2. The University of Chicago apparently refuses to publish all logograms, word roots, and complex words (many probably proper names) in Hittite that start with the letter A (in phonetic transliteration). Is the name "Armen" mentioned too often, perhaps? 3. the University of Chicago has concentrated all study of Hittites onto its own campus or "closely guarded" (as described by an academic friend) affiliates. There are only two part time academics, both married women with children in Armenia, who are "professionally involved" in HIttite research. In essence, we depend on the "objective and apolitical" (sic) staff at the University of Chicago to present us with the evidence on the Hittites.

.... 520 b.c, at Behisitun is NOT the first concrete inscription of the Armenia(n) name! We can skip to the 8th century b.c. with the Assyrian library unearthed at Nineveh, that which was at least maintained if not originally commissioned by Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria! We can skip further back than that all the way to the 23rd century with Naram-Suwen's stellate south of Amida/Diyarbekir. As someone mentioned, Metzamor has clearly Armenian features to it. It would be like refusing to acknowledge the entire symbology that Armenians have continually adopted, that they still continue to traditionally utilize in their artisanr and architectural motifs. Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Perhaps there are those who do not appreciate the importance of understanding one's national or nation’s origins. That is their choice. Let them forget that they are human beings with ancestors. My concern is with those who do understand. Armenians, as a culture, as a cultural ethos, have existed since prehistory on the Armenian plateau. This is an educated opinion, and no one can honestly refute it or substantiate it 100%. In the study of the remote past, the number of sheer gaps left to the detriment of historic verification are staggering, and, therefore, we have all sorts of biases pulling the opinion magnet in different directions. I am not interested in opinions that omit evidence that might refute their opinion. I am also not interested in stupid opinions that see "no point" in studying our ethnogenesis. The current so-called "mainstream accepted theory" is that Armenians, despite all the evidence that it ignores, are migrants to Armenia between the 6th and 12th centuries b.c.e. Now, when the adherents to this obvious travesty in historical revisionism are cornered, they "switch" to a different red herring argument such as 1) "how do we know whether or not they were Armenians?" 2) "Are Italians Romans?" I don't know, but we have never ceased to call ourselves Hay (not Hye - that's a Korean feminine name). We have never ceased, as a national unit, to associate ourselves with the Hayk of our remote past, and I don't see any indication that the Hayk of pre-Artashesian times ever did identify themselves as anything but Hayk. You cannot prove otherwise, and to prove otherwise would indeed prove motives other than national survival. It is indeed a choice Armenians have to make. The choice is either to be “politically correct” in a climate dominated by imperialist biases, or go against the grain in order to prevent our assimilation out of existence by way of adopting fatalist “models” of history. Toynbee’s “organic model” is as insane as it is impossible, but, lo and behold, all of us seem to have been swallowed like dupes in a game created by others. First: In ancient times, linguistic ties determined nationhood. "State citizenship" did not. That is apparently still the case. That will not change any time soon, save for “Romanized” western cultures with their self-righteous validations of what “nationality” means. They are utterly confused: Nationality is simply not, nor has it ever been, citizenship except in the mind of the Romanized post-Feudal mini-empire such as France (that eventually consolidates its “nationhood” by way of cultural genocide of its “various ethnicities.”) If the Armenian mindset would have dominated the Romans and the rest of the Italian peninsula, Gaul, Britain, as well as other “provinces”, then, yes, at least the portion called Latium would consider itself as Roman today. However, such “states” that grew from a single urban center are not qualified as “nations” under the Armenian model. As the matter of fact, a good portion of Italians do tend to refer to themselves as Romani, and that is because they are in fact cultural descendents of the City State of Rome, with borrowings mostly from the Greco-Etruscan civilizations they conquered. The faulty and incomplete notion of "nationality" as defined by the "age of Enlightenment" is not ever what the Armenians have adopted. One important linguistic is that Armenians, despite their dialectical differences, did maintain that they are linguistically one unit. All the remnant literature points to that and no other possible scenario. The rest of the “counter arguments” are mere speculations based on the inane “repetition” model adopted by dupes such as Toynbee. Our nationalism has older roots and can be safely considered to be primordial in nature. The reason? There is no way one can prove otherwise. POLITICAL (AND IDEOLOGICAL) CONSIDERATIONS The faulty doctrines of "nationalism" as adopted by the age of Enlightenment are amends made after brutal Imperial Roman obliteration of most, if not all, former ethnic groups in Rome's path. With a few exceptions, Rome managed to destroy all former ethnic units, nations, enslave them, and then integrate them into its "citizenry." The so-called "British model" of "nationalism" in the Enlightenment is nothing but a revival of the Roman "citizenship" model after a Feudal hiatus of Imperial rule. The British then, of course, proceeded to exploit this notion of "nationality as citizenship" and built their empire entirely on this premise. Armenians, unfortunately for imperialists, have never fit this faulty and incomplete model. Historically the Armenian requirement for "nationhood" and thus "nationality" have been and have continued to be the inclusive set of ethnic, linguistic, and territorial.