hagopn

Twilight Bark, a member who resigned a while back, makes reference to the R. Gray's and Q. Atkinson's collaboration on the so-called Anatolia Languages Here's a lengthy analysis http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/indo-european-origins-neolithic.html The Monkey school of the Kurgan Theory are of course against the chronological (glottochronological) argument that the IE group is more ancient than previously thought due to the lexical affinity with Sumerian. Hey, V. Ivanov had been saying that since the beginning. It's interesting that these guys took over where Jensen had left off, where Ivanov rebooted, and decided that the IE genesis took place in Armenia (ok, "Neolithic Anatolia" in case it upsets too many sensitive souls). The thing that fascinates me about Dieneke's blog is the off-the-wall misconceptions on Armenian history and culture by the commenters there. Fascinating. However, the silver lining is a commenter named Ashraf who posted this http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/print/articles/aid/urheimat.pdf Note the Indian scholars and their objections. Armenians doing the same thing would be labeled "a la Turka" by Teutonic Knight, Bell-the-Spat and his sort. I like this entry in reference to the Sumerian language, an interesting example of the snake eating its own academic tail: "But being the main language of civilization in ca. 3000 BC, one could not exclude contact through long-distance trade with the Kurgan area. Note however that the trade links between Sumeria and the Harappan civilization ("Meluhha" in Mesopotamian texts) are well-attested, e.g. the names Arisena and Somasena in a tablet from Akkad dating to ca.2200 BC. No such attestation exists for similar contacts with the Kurgan people." The Harappan culture has not left decipherable linguistic traces to speak of, just hieroglyphs with no Rosetta equivalent. Therefore, we don't know the names of their cities. Therefore, what the hell is he talking about? It has not been determined that Meluhha refers to India, at least Harappa. Meluhha may well be Cochin, or Tyre, Muscat, Bahrain, Ebla, any sea port or river port. These folks are certainly interesting. I tell you, Gavoukjian is someone I trust the most, because he just looks at the grander picture with more logic and soberness than any of these loopty-loop Phd doodlers.

Then there is this fascinating article by Robert Cowen that says nothing short of the following: The Hittite, the Hayassa, and the Urartu in fact are the same entity! How about that for a Monkey Wrench in the Monkey Wheel? Not only that, he posits that Phrygian is a Hellenic misnomer for the Hatti, the Hittites! Greeks having made historical errors and mispronouncing things? Oh, it cannot be-- Let's eat some dzdziki and dolmathes, while singing songs by Tome Zones.

Yervant, I just finished reading the first discussion. Bell-the-Cat is that weird Scot named Steve Sim who put together that bland porridge of a website Virtual Ani. He is very active in Hyeclub. They haven't banned him there for some reason. I did a test run to draw him out of the cockroach cracks with responses to a discussion about Onnik Krikorian, another Monkey Extraordinaire. Actually, Onnik is more of a Weasel In The Chicken Coop sort. They talk about the so-called "association of Armens with Nairi" as a supposed distinct entity from those of the Hayassa and the Urartuan, and so on. Same old Monkey nonsense. There is in fact nothing like that ever stated in any history, nothing that says "the Nairi were Armens and were different from the Hayassa." It is pure distortion and concoction, a pasting and splicing together of references from different sources from vastly different eras about the same people by differing cultures and timelines. The Assyrians recall the Nairi. The Assyrians DO NOT recall the Hayassa-azzi. There is also NO indication, AT ALL, that Hayassa referred only to "Lesser Armenia." I have no idea who is in charge of this trashy "decipherment" of history, but they should all be fired from their posts. The Hayassa name is ONLY remembered in Hittite sources, and this is no surprise, since the Hittites were also Armenian speakers, or speakers of an Armenian-like dialect, hence the phenomenon of calling the Hay by their autonym of Hay!

Armenian culture it is, then. Keep in your mind that we have the Dog Star's patent. We are the oldest in the domestication of dogs. We are the ones who have burial ceremonies that involves burial of the dog with master. If the stale old argument is that "we were not really us back then," then I have to object and ask for proof of when and how, exactly, did we cease to be what we were and became what we are. ---->(*&$%&*^$% When and how did the "Urartuan" (non-existent entity) lose the war (that never happened) to Armenians (who were always the same people, therefore ones who cannot seek war against themselves) and lose their cultural identity? Where are the remnants of this large and impressive Empire, Kingdom of millions, the one who had running water, the one who had healed skull fractures among its remains (indicating surgical procedure on the brain/head), and so on? If indeed the Armenians are "distinct" from the "Urartuan", then where were those enigmatic "Urartuans" in the Artashesian period? Indeed, if the IE language has a history of at least 4500 to 5000 years in Armenia according to many linguists, then why indeed did the ARmenians have to "migrate in" at the 2500 year mark and "annihilate" (without any record of such a thing ever happening) the "non-Indo-European, Neo-Hurrianite Urartuans?" What a load of *)&O^#$&*^$, really. The rich language of Armenians was already coherent and highly developed at the very beginning of the Mashtotsian era, which is infinitely more meaningful an Era than the "Grigorian" non-Era of destruction, of the looting and burning of native Armenian sanctuaries recorded by Agathangelos. This rich language is clearly one that requires a sophisticated and stable, sedentary and industrious culture. it is not the language of "a hodge podge of herders who merged with native Neo-Hurrianite/Chechenite farming culture" etc, yev ayln and other such sheer nonsense and &*(^$%(&*$^%.

At least I can say this: This discussion, despite the subdued sarcasm that is seldom but certainly palpable, has been civil. Most of the time, the Monkey technique is to discredit via insult, belittlement and ridicule, total ad hominem while ignoring content, intentional distraction from the actual content. The other technique, of course the Appeal to Monkey Authority, where Monkey cites Monkey With Phd (Who Still Can't Dare to Catch the Banana). Then there's the media Belittlement Blitz campaigning: For example, I saw an televised interview/forum with Armen Ayvazyan, absolute turcophile Ashot Bleyan, absolute imbecile Robert Sahakyantz the cartoonist and two boneheaded journalists. Most of the dialog, especially by Sahakyants, was in Russian, the Mother Tongue of "academic and cultural" Monkeys in Armenia. The journalists were obviously biased against Ayvazyan. The entire interview was meant to simply belittle Ayvazyan and marginalize him. It failed among the general thinking public, but it succeeded among the Monkey Initiates, those undergrads and graduate students who are busy getting brainwashed by their Monkey history professors, poli-sci professors and so on. The general population of Armenians is, fortunately, still healthy and very nationalist minded, and they were generally furious after the interview.

It is broken. Break it again with some more of the same Monkey breaking? It appears that we are at a standstill. I of course will not budge. Armenians are an ancient people whose history has been misrepresented by foreign and domestic vagrants and hostiles presenting themselves as authorities on the topic for decades now. The process is accelerating per the demands of the Turkish History Society's manifesto of total erasure of Armenians from Armenia's history. The connection with the Basque that started this thread drew the typical brainwashed reaction of the present day Monkey Armenian. That is going to be chipped away by the likes of myself and many much smarter for however long it takes. The Monkey will soon become the Dinosaur, extinct, dead, shriveling carcass, and once again the ARmenian, with strength in his self-awareness and past lessons will gain his former composure as much as each step of political ascendency that comes with it brings.. In the meanwhile, let the Monkeys try to Shine. They have already been largely discredited among the thinking public. Also, without exception, the ones that react immediately positively to this are of sound mind, without complexes, and are willing to see things as they were. In fact, they are able to see things as they were when Armenia and the psyche of Armenians hadn't been infested with the turkic vermin. The ones who resist this are inundated in shame and fear. As a disclaimer to the typical leftist and anti-nationalist boors lurking in the background (although they are probably too busy deconstructing our national identity in their bolshevik/marxist hugging sessions in Facebook and aylur), let me state this: Now Armenians are finding that there are also healthy minds among turkish citizenry. That merely proves that these folks have non-altaic ancestry, most likely Armenian.

Տոհմական անունը նոյնացավ Հուռինեռու, Աւետարանի Հոռիտներու հե՞տ։ Շատ աւելի բարի։ Ուրեմն հաստատեցինք որ հայկական արմատ ու հայկական հարստութիւն/dynasty էին։ Մեծ ուրախութեամբ ընդուուեցաւ։

Arpa, Are you now driving the discussion into self-immolation territory? "We have some thieves and adulterers among us. We have no right to be called Chrstian let alone claim first Christian statehood." Yes, I feel your pain.

I already responded to the the meaningless "literacy" argument. Those who developed the first written language committed cultural suicide because of the literacy. Yes, Sumer lost its independence to the illiterate Amorites because the literate class of merchants essentially had created a slave labor society, which only accelerated in its pace due to the literacy of the scribe class who mostly served the merchant/usurious classes. Examine their history closely. As to the lack of "literacy" among Armenian speaking peoples. Its ridiculous. Read again Peter Jensen and learn.

Կառծիք է որ հիմք ունի։ Յիշենք որ մենք Հ հնչոիւնը ունինք, ուրեմն իրավունք ունինք Հուռի հնչելու Հուռիներու ցեղանունը։ Իսկ ի՞նչ գիտենք «հուռեան ցեղերի» մասին, բացի այն, որ իրենց լեզուն ոչ սեմական է՝ ոչ ալ ՀԵ։ Ըստ ո՞ր հեղինակային եւ վստահելի կերպարին։ Լոգ մի քանի կասկածելի գիտնականներու որոնց կարելի տեղադրել «Կապկամարզիչներու» շարքին, օրինակ, Դիակոնով։ Հայկական նեղգաղթ աւելի հաւանական է, քանզի հայկական ցեղերը աւելի հին ու շատ ներկայութիւն էն ունեցած ՀԱՅՔՈՒՄ եւ, իմ կարծիքով, Միջագետքում։ Կարդայ Peter Jensenի Armenier und Hittiter (այս ո՞ր ապուշը Ռն դրած է Rի տեղը ստեղնաշարի վրայ)

Earlier people were dealing with an entirely different Armenian and Armenia. Armenians then were stronger, prouder, more confident, leaders, movers, shakers, the most highly paid mercenaries, among the most trusted merchants, and so on. The Armenia of the Bagratuni alone outpopulated most European states of the time. It was, in fact, the largest single kindgom on record outside the direct influence of imperialism. The world was indeed different. Think of it if Armenia was a country with a population of 80 or so million with similar industrial potential it had in the 10th century. It would be the leader of weapons production, a leader in gold production, a leader in manufacturing. In other words, it would be a Germany or better, more experienced, even more stable.

I made an error above. The "force" in Morals and Dogma refers to the "potential of the population" that "must be regulated and guided by brain and law," which means the "brotherhood."

Che, che, amot e. Arman, Armen, Armentierre. Che, chellar. Amot e beh!

Distorted "histories" by Christian Biblical influenced oral testimony is not as reliable, particularly if it goes against all logic. Even if there is truth in Hayk's legend, then repatriation is probably how it should be interpreted. Armenians lived in Mesopotamia in great number probably. They in fact still had a state in the South of Mesopotamia under a rebellion Armenian king named Arakha, as Darius I recalls. Armenian king named Arakha in the vicinity of ancient Sumer? How so, you say? Our Monkeys avoiding the Banana even say that Armenian statehood began "as a consequence of Persian Satraps." This is utter nonsense, but it does remind me of pan-Turk "history" of Armenia. How do these Monkeys explain that Arakha the Armin (yes, Arakha the Armenian) lived in Darius 1's time as an Armenian king IN SUMER! I'll tell you. Read Gavoukjian's last chapter in Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer, and get perhaps his most valuable input on the topic: Migrations were mostly done downstream Tigris and Euphrates. Simple. Plain. Logical. It's easier to migrate downstream. Something the matter with that logic? Or are we, the Monkeys, going to argue against Gravity, the flow of rivers, the laws of nutritional needs of growing populations, and so on?

Yervant, I assume you have read Armen Ayvazyan's "controversial" book that dealt with the Turkish influence on Armenology in the USA, Canada, much of the west, Eastern block, and USSR? The English title is The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography: A Critical Survey. 1998 The Armenian is Հայաստանի պատմության լուսաբանումը ամերիկյան պատմագրության մեջջ. քննական տեսություն Of course, the book is only "controversial" to brainwashed Monkey Brigade Afraid to Touch The Banana. In his book he brings to light the proposal on Armenology made by Esat Uras, the president of the Turkish Historical Society in the 1980s. Esat Uras' proposal was that Armenia should be discredited as much as possible as a viable political unit, a state, a nation or nationality. it should be treated as a temporary, semi-nomadic, almost ephemeral presence, such as the Gypsy/Romani identity. They are working tirelessly to buy as many historians, and they have strong and rich allies. The Pink Elephant's leadership is traditionally very pro-Turkish.

What about them Armenian origin Bogomils of Bulgaria, the Cathar/Albinesgian "heresy"?

Then there is the phenomenon of different Celtic groups having mutually unintelligible languages and vocabulary. Who is to say that the Britons were not originally Armenian speaking, who then lost their original language and were assimilated in the larger Gaelic speaking societies? According to the Bavarian migration theory, the Bavarians originally spoke a foreign language, an ARmenian dialect most likely, who later became German speakers. The Annolied says the following: "Duo sich Beirelant wider in virmaz, Die mêrin Reginsburch her se bisaz, Dâ vanter inne Helm unti brunigen, Manigin helit guodin, Die dere burg hû[h]din. Wiliche Knechti dir wêrin, Deist in heidnischin buochin mêri. Dâ lisit man Noricus ensis, Daz diudit ein suert Beierisch, Wanti si woldin wizzen Daz inge[m]ini baz nibizzin, Die man dikke durch den helm slûg; Demo liute was ie diz ellen gût. Dere geslehte dare quam wîlin êre Von Armenie der hêrin, Dâ Nôê ûz der arkin gîng, Dûr diz olizuî von der tûvin intfieng: Iri zeichin noch du archa havit Ûf den bergin Ararat. Man sagit daz dar in halvin noch sîn Die dir Diutischin sprecchin, Ingegin India vili verro. Peiere vûrin ie ziwîge gerno: Den sigin den Cêsar an un gewan Mit bluote mûster in geltan." The bold type emphasis is mine. Saint Anno also writes about the Noricum, thought to be a Celtic region, but closer scrutiny reveals no such thing. Thousands of towns and villages of "heretics" were exiled to the far regions of the Byzantine/Roman controlled realm during the various "heretic" rebellions (Tonrdakian, Pavlikian, even older ones, civil war, no matter how you choose to label it), and the banks of the Danube, the Black Forest, the Rhine region, the Rhone region, Anjou, and so on, saw these migrants settle. And what is with that French region of Lille and vicinity, Armentierre? Armentierre? Really? And we don't take a closer look? Is the Monkey/Banana reflex that strong? So who's to say a good number of European "mysteries" can't be explained this way. Even a superficial and cursory examination reveals a lot of Armenian presence.

Besides, since there are theories that say the IE language first saw light in Armenia, the Celts could very well be the Գեղամ of Gavoukjian's theory. Gavoukjian's far-fetched assumptions still have entertaining possibilities. Since we are talking about a language family, then we cannot ignore the probability that these peoples were at some point related in some combination. Once upon a time, circa 4000 b.c., the village grew. Tatev Hayrik said, "Torgom, you inherit this portion. Gegham, I give you what later on they will call Galatia"--- Who says at what point the Celt and the Armenian began and the Mayr Lezu IE ended? Did they do it together? Were they ever related in blood?

I interpret it as Bede having meant Armenians. Celts were prevalent in Europe, the Balkans, only a small part of Asia Minor, and simply were not from Armenia proper. My assumption is that an Armenian speaking legion that remained on the British isles, originally perhaps under Hadrian's command, was cause for this opinion. Others are more bold and say that the Britons were in fact another tribe of the Thraco-Phrygian group of whom Armenian is a member by relying on Ellis' linguistic analysis. The chronology of Celtic migration is up for grabs. Both languages are members of the IE group, but that is only relevant for relatively recent Armenian migrations. There are interesting mythological and linguistic links, aside from the glaringly similar political model, between Armenians and Celts. The only difference is that the Celts were more matriarchal in their mythology and political leanings than Armenians, something that Armenians also apparently once were. The deities, such as Ara, that were feminine and local for Armenians that later became masculine, remained feminine, almost unchanged among the Celts. Now you say that Bede actually meant to say that the Britons were Celts who came from Galatia. Galatia was a specific region of western Asia Minor where a small population of Gallic people, supposedly Celtoi, lived. Galatia simple was not Armenia! Unless, of course, Bede considered all of Asia Minor, the Armenian Plateau, the northwest Zagros, and the entirety of the Caucasus as Armenia, as the Arab chroniclers also often did. This is possible, but doubtful. Bede was specific: Armenia. There are those who try to explain away why Bede says Armenia. The Monkeys have done better than you -> They have said Bede misspelled Amerois ( or something like that, I can't remember the concoction) or some other nonsense.

What about that interesting Annolied http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annolied#Bavarians_descended_from_Armenians ? Is that "fiction" as well? The Bavarian name apparently is possibly of Armenian origin!

If we understand ծագում as origin in the absolute sense, then there would be a problem. "Yes. the Britons were Armenians." There are possibilities as to why the British monk Bede said what he said. Armenians didn't say it. Khorenatsi didn't say it. Bede the Monk wrote it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle Ivanov-Gamkrelidze found the IE homeland to be Armenia, Van and vicinity. The neolithic era began there. The Bronze first saw light there. The Iron Age first saw light there. So what do we do with this information? Ignore it? Hovaness, are you still worried about us looking like the ridiculous pan-Turks? I am truly surprised you don't see the difference. Tarqinia you say? The entire "Turan" and "Tarku" and so on series is also probably of Armenian origin! We have the "Torq" legend, the mythical giant, the king who sank ships by throwing boulders into the sea. Khorenatsi remembers him as Torgom, an actual king, who apparently was ruler of the Angegh Tun, the Eagle Clan or Dynasty who ruled Taron, which is most probably the Turan in the Shahname. And why can it not be? Because "amot e"?

Գիտերեւայականը այն է, որ կ՚անտեսէ փաստը «քանի որ չի կարելի թուրքին նմանիլ։ Ամօթ է»։ Շատ մե՚ծ տարբերութիւն կայ, բայց չենք ուզեր տեսնել։ Մեզ կապիկի նման սորվեցուցեր են անտեսել։ Ինչքան ալ փաստ ներկայացուի, զսպանակի պէս Կապիկի ձգտումը կը վերադարնայ։ Ոչ մեկ ժամանակ հայախոս կամ «հայ լինելու» պնդումներ չեղան։ Հայաստանի եւ հայ մշակոյթի ազդեցութեան մասին է խոսքը, եւ հայ գաղթի հետքեր փնտրելն է հարցը։ Կներես որ անգելերենով պիտի շարունակեմ։ ռ եւ ր գիրերու սխալ տեղադրումը ինձ շատ կը չարչարէ։

Interesting!

He was a true, absolute, and great national hero who should be buried in the Pantheon, definitely. It is very sad indeed to hear of his death.

Arpa, Are we seriously going to propagate the stereotypes that the Pink Elephant mass media promotes? Yervant, I'm glad to have read your response in acknowledgment of this huge problem amongst us. I have had many attempts to recruit into the "brotherhood" by at least half-a-dozen moronic, but "surprisingly wealthy" (yet poor in the brain), fools. One was a physician who couldn't cure a hole in a sock. Fascinatingly and incredibly stupid fellow who couldn't evoke any semblance of a good idea to save his, or his patients' lives, and yet, here he was, in charge of a clinic with many young doctors whose loyalties he maintained due to his "connections" and ability to maintain a stream of insurance driven clientele. I tell you, the frauds that these mongrels are, should their system crumble one day, they will all starve while begging in the streets while the actual producers in life will either weep in pity or laugh out loud. I will definitely be the latter. In the meanwhile, these morons take over all important leadership positions, as they have done for at least 2 centuries, and drive our national identity and minds to the grave. The academic sort consistently follow the moral relativist pattern and already are dichotomous advocates of the anti-nationalist mindset. In other words, the "global brotherhood" has managed to neutralize our resolve through these mongrels. An easy way to detect them is to ask them what they think of Plato's Republic and the Totalitarian model it advocates. Watch their response. You might as well read Morals and Dogma http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html verbatim. Note that they used to deny the existence as a practice of Morals and Dogma, but now they proudly post it on their websites. "FORCE, unregulated or ill-regulated, is not only wasted in the void, like that of gunpowder burned in the open air, and steam unconfined by science; but, striking in the dark, and its blows meeting only the air, they recoil and bruise itself. It is destruction and ruin. It is the volcano, the earthquake, the cyclone;-not growth and progress. It is Polyphemus blinded, striking at random, and falling headlong among the sharp rocks by the impetus of his own blows. The blind Force of the people is a Force that must be economized, and also managed, as the blind Force of steam, lifting the ponderous iron arms and turning the large wheels, is made to bore and rifle the cannon and to weave the most delicate lace. It must be regulated by Intellect. Intellect is to the people and the people's Force, what the slender needle of the compass is to the ship--its soul, always counselling the huge mass of wood and iron, and always pointing to the north. To attack the citadels built up on all sides against the human race by superstitions, despotisms, and prejudices, the Force must have a brain and a law. Then its deeds of daring produce permanent results, and there is real progress. Then there are sublime conquests. Thought is a force, and philosophy should be an energy, finding its aim and its effects in the amelioration of mankind. The two great motors are Truth and Love. When all these Forces are combined, and guided by the Intellect, and regulated by the RULE of Right, and Justice, and of combined and systematic movement and effort, the great revolution prepared for by the ages will begin to march. The POWER of the Deity Himself is in equilibrium with His WISDOM. Hence the only results are HARMONY." In other words, Totalitarianism is Good, and Free Will is Bad. They will all recite the above like little moronic kindergartners. Actually, "brain and law" for Pike might as well read as "I choose the system where I can create as many loopholes as possible and come out a winner provided that I position myself accordingly, preferable on the side of the mysterious Force." By "the Force," of course, he means "the Brotherhood." It's safer to see "brain and law" that Morals and Dogma espouses as that perceived of by Fred Rodell http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm I in particular like Rodell's almost, but not fully intentional, satirical treatment of the Supreme Court. In general, "brain and law" actually translates to mean "a way to cheat the system from within via a quagmire of contradictory legalist abstractions in order to confuse the layman into capitulating to the Brotherhood, the Force and its puppet Bar." Anyone who is a member of this "Force" is a total moron, but they will always be under the impression that they understand and see things we do not. In reality, what they do not see is quite simply that they are merely weakling cheaters who act like opportunistic rats, unskilled losers who merely found a way to compensate for their incompetence and lack of actual talent, selfish boors who excuse their narcissism with the anti-altruistic brainwashing of The Brotherhood who in fact mocks altruism and all that Christianity stands for under the pretense of "requiring religious piety from its members". it's incredible.