Armenian Origins?

[Twilight Bark]

Pardon my lack of knowledge :) but are we not talking about two distinct entities here , i.e. nation and ethnicity?

Nationhood as we understand it now is a relatively new concept while ethnicity goes all the way back to the days of Haik and Ara.

There may be just one other people besides us that (deliberateley)confuses the two, and if WE insist on it our destiny will be as doomed as theirs'!!!

Is Turkey a nation? How many ethnic groups does it include?

What is an Armenian?

A citizen of Armenia? Anyone who professes to be one?

As far as citizenship, read about the exodus. As to ethnicity, is AmericaHye, aka Khodja, aka Hagarag really an Armenian? :)

Dear Arpa,

I'll try to be brief for lack of time. "Modern concept of nation" is self-evidently "modern"; we all agree on that. So it doesn't apply to any nation's historical existence before 19th century. I don't know why we should care much about whether our collective self-consciousness in August 12 of 1024 or a fine morning in Hayasa around 1350 BC resembled the 19th century european thinkers' idea of what constitutes a nation and "nationalism". Our "nationhood" and culture evolved and changed over millenia; big deal. I don't buy the self-serving definitions of european colonial culture classifying "nations", "ethnicities", and "tribes". Just as I think it is up to the individual to declare what s/he is, it is up to the particular people in question to declare and define what they are. If they declare themselves as an "ethnicity", that's what they are. If they do see themselves as a "tribe" in the derogatory sense of the word, that's what they are. If they defined themselves as a "nation" even when they lacked what the "big boys" thought as a prerequisite of "proper" nationhood, then they were a "nation". I am not going to get my definitions from those that read "Jack and the Beanstalk" to their kids as a bedtime story.

 

Finally, the fact that our self-image is still based largely on kinship and shared values does not make it incompatible with the modern concept of "nationhood".

 

Sorry, have to go now.

 

Later,

TB

[Historynow2002]

I have studied this page several times.

 

It's a GREAT page.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/Azgaser/AR.html

 

BUT... it's just ONE page. Is there any other

pages or views on the where the reverence for

Hayk/Haig comes from?.... from what part

of the Indo-European world?

 

I'm not talking about a religious or biblical

explanation. I'm talking about a hard-eyed

archaeologically based one.

 

Any help?

 

Regards,

 

George

[TashnagZinvor]

the types youve posted are in no way Armenoid, the nasal root is too short, WAY too short for the extreme armenoid length, nose is too thin, and not bulbous or fleshy, that means its NOT armenoid, looks more like dinarid/eastern orientid mix, with some armenoid convexity, the second is nothing armenoid, looks more asiatic and meditarannean, you obviously have no idea what your saying...Dinaroids stem from Armenoid, they do not have Nordid in them, Alpinid was not assimilated into Dinars, but into the Armenoids, hence there brachycephalic indexs are the same, dinars are armenoid+med...armenoids do not equal armenian, but armenians for the most part equal armenoid, bringing into consideration the many swarthy complected dark pigmented armenians we have to day, comes into question admixture with irano-afghans, and meditaranneans (semite is not a racial classification, but a biblical term)...funny that there are also those who are extremely dark, whome do not have armenoid, dinaric, or nordid features, that claim to be armenian, yet look more like east indians/arabids/irano-afghans (i would say are Gypsies), that have overwhelmingly replaced armenoids with mongrels.

[TashnagZinvor]

ive included armenoid types in my post of armenian origins, those two are far from them.

[Teutonic Knight]

the types youve posted are in no way Armenoid, the nasal root is too short, WAY too short for the extreme armenoid length, nose is too thin, and not bulbous or fleshy, that means its NOT armenoid, looks more like dinarid/eastern orientid mix, with some armenoid convexity, the second is nothing armenoid, looks more asiatic and meditarannean, you obviously have no idea what your saying...Dinaroids stem from Armenoid, they do not have Nordid in them, Alpinid was not assimilated into Dinars, but into the Armenoids, hence there brachycephalic indexs are the same, dinars are armenoid+med...armenoids do not equal armenian, but armenians for the most part equal armenoid, bringing into consideration the many swarthy complected dark pigmented armenians we have to day, comes into question admixture with irano-afghans, and meditaranneans (semite is not a racial classification, but a biblical term)...funny that there are also those who are extremely dark, whome do not have armenoid, dinaric, or nordid features, that claim to be armenian, yet look more like east indians/arabids/irano-afghans (i would say are Gypsies), that have overwhelmingly replaced armenoids with mongrels.

lol well mr. tashnag I agree with you but unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't.

Wherever you go the definition for Armenoid is a swarthy, hook nosed ugly mongrel freak.

Therefore most Armenians are Meds with an insignificant so called "Armenoid" minority that came into petty existence through admixture with Arabs, Iranians & Asiatics.

[Teutonic Knight]

ive included armenoid types in my post of armenian origins, those two are far from them.

Not Armenian: http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f1.gif

Not Armenian: http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f3.gif

 

The other two in Coon's paper are fine.

May I remind you that Coon's work is outdated and since then nobody has dared to continue his work.

[TashnagZinvor]

coons classifications hold a very strong influence in the world of geneology if you one day care to look into it...

those two types are very much Armenoid, and how are they not Armenian? One from Istanbul and one from Van? Im assuming your eastern Armenian since you mispronounced my sn as DASHNAK, when in fact it started and originated in Western Armenia, therefore its Tashnag, no matter what dialect you speak. So why is an Eastern Armenian from Van not Armenian? He displays clear characteristics of Asiatic influence, however the other seems very Armenoid to me, with acception to his dark skin. Coons classifying of the variants of Armenoid are to show what scale they come in, in the Armenian community, be it light pigmentedwestern armenians, or darker eastern armenians, or the other way around.

 

your assumption that all geneologists assume armenoids to be swarthy and mongrel is inncorrect, however that time can be found in the middle east quite frequentyl. Armenoids are in fact hooked nosed, as are the dinars, many times its confused with Jewish ancestry and considered swarthy, when in fact the jews inherited it from the ancient indo european Hitites due to domination by the Hitites. Armenoids are fleshy, they are big headed, they do have hook noses from the side view, they do have heavy brow ridges, and are not swarthy (this may have come from the meditarannean admixture. that of which Arabids and Jews belong to, are the darkest of the meditarannean, a pure form which does not have the hook nose, instead a long, thick ridges nose with a depression at the inside of the nose, and whome are mesosophalic (small headed)

[kakachik77]

I found the original message about the "Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language".

 

While we're on the subject, I remember reading somewhere that the word for 'Artsax' in the Chechen (Vainakh) language is 'Arts'. That is obviously related to the Armenian name 'Artsakh', which tells me that it is an indigenous name rather than an Armenian word with Indo-European roots.

 

Which brings me to this question: How much of Armenian vocabulary consists of indigenous Caucasian words? IfThis question is for any linguists out there...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Kara-Bagh MEANS "Black Garden" combination of two Turkish words. Don't tell me you've never heard Armenians use the word "Bagh" to describe their garden.

 

My conclusion - stop overanalyzing people!

[MosJan]

ok don;t fight

it's not Kara-Bagh

 

it's Artsakh

[kakachik77]

Not Armenian: http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f1.gif

Not Armenian: http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p42f3.gif

 

The other two in Coon's paper are fine.

May I remind you that Coon's work is outdated and since then nobody has dared to continue his work.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Coon's work is not only outdated but absolutely scientifically FALSE. Just pay attention when he worked on, around the same time when Fascism was ruling Europe. This guy basically sat in his office in some East Coast American University, looked at some random pictures and THEORIZED. If anything he wrote or said was anything close to truth then the modern anthropology would still heavily rely on it. Instead, the only people who heavily rely on his literature are white supremacists. If any race (if such thing exists of course) is genetically superior it's blacks, they have enough melanin to withstand sun rays, fight it better than the mutated white skin that gets skin cancer much much sooner.

 

It's not what you're genetically made up of that make you Armenian, it's knowing your history, the struggles, culture etc. All Armenians are mixed, but that should be taken as a compliment, we have diverse stronger genes (there is a reason why cousins should not marry).

[hagopn]

I'm African born, of 100% Armenian ancestry, and I found absolutely nothing superior about blacks. Mutated white skin? According to who? Some pseudo-scientist group busy bashing anything white? These days I can sometimes sympathize with the white supremacists. Black supremacism is uglier than any form of white supremacism that has ever existed.

 

If blacks are "genetically superior," then why is any African city, with exception to pre-Apartheid SA cities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town, etc., a shit hole while pretty much any European city a virtual museum of high civilization? Just what is it with the innate need for comparisons?

 

Africans are not superior. Let's agree for expediency's sake that Africans are not inferior. To each his own.

 

I am biased in favor of Armenians, who are not in any camp.

 

Armenians by tradition have been good people who have achieved much good, and they will continue to do so. Armenians historically have not discriminated against whites, yellows, reds, greens, blues, or blacks. Armenians are a people who should be proud of their genes and their culture. They are inferior to no one!

 

OK, enough expediency: Africans have not managed to bring any civilization to the fore. Egypt? Complete lies. Ethiopia? Ask Haile Selassie through his interviews: i.e. he says "we are not black Africans. We are different" or something to that effect. I'll have to dig it up again.

 

Ethiopians called the darker blacks, like the Congolese and so on, "baria" which means "slave."

 

Armenians, well, well, no matter what the hell they run into, they seem to find a way to get along, even damn Turks.

 

Armenians, as I have written elsewhere, were the only ones to fight alongside Ethiopians for Ethiopia's freedom against the Italians in two, not one, but two instances, two separate attempts at colonization. To be fair, Italian "colonization" was actually in many ways good for Ethiopians who have had no chance of developing a capital city like the Italians did for them, but the ARmenian character just doesn't condone such things as a host country of his to become someone's occupied land. We have developed compassion in that form. That to me is superiority.

Edited January 30, 2014 by hagopn

[hagopn]

And, having grown up among blacks a good chunk of my life, I found that people in the "developed" countries are lies to about the characteristics of blacks constantly.

 

I will delve deeply into this topic years after it has been abandoned by likely Facebook emigrees. I don't care. This is a good record keeper, and proud I am of the opinion on Armenians that I have.

 

Armenian origins are noble ones in a land that was plentiful, but required effort to live in and manage resources in.. Thus, the Armenian character is that of a survivor, and builder, an engineer and architect, yet also of extreme hospitality and generosity due to his agricultural skills, both an able urbanite and villager at the same time.

 

That, also, to me is superiority.

[hagopn]

People in developed countries, (read, white countries) are lies to about the characteristics and history of blacks, lied to badly. The current political climate is that of making ALL whites guilty for some mysterious set of "permanent penances" we must all do, even ARmenians. How ridiculous is that, eh? Armenians having to do penance for African fantasy grievances? Ridiculous!

 

Africans should bow in shame in front of every Armenian alive! They have in fact done us wrong at every chance they have gotten! Haile Selassie found ti convenient to use Armenians as scapegoats for his corrupt regime as much as he could, and then the communist Derg regime didn't fare much better. Remember, I am African born! All the while, Armenians literally have done nothing but good for that continent. In retrospect, to do good for such an ungrateful bunch was perhaps a waste of effort, but the Armenian character does not know otherwise.

 

I repeat that the Armenian character is a noble one due to the homeland it was formed in. It was a homeland that was plentiful, but one with extremes in climate, geology and topography, which in turn required effort to live in and manage resources in, however plentiful they were.. For example, Armenians are experts at Winter preserves, absolute experts, and experts at farming in difficult territory. The land's topography, its roughness and variety, yet its high and lofty terrain, noble and towering, with its extremes, also is reflected in our character.s

 

Thus, again the Armenian character is that of a survivor and builder, an engineer and architect, yet also of extreme hospitality and generosity he can easily afford due to his work ethics, agricultural skills, having been both an able urbanite and villager at the same time.

 

Do I idealize my people? No. I do not. I simply state the reality as I see it. What if do idealize? Why should I not? I will always state the belief I have that Armenians a superior people precisely because we are not oppressors, we are not ridiculous supremacists, we are not usurpers and thieves of the history and memory of others. We are producers, not parasites, and we are builders, not destructive locusts. Paruyr Sevak said it best, but I will paraphrase him and say that I would be ashamed if Armenians ever did what the imperialists and neighboring bandits have done to us.

 

However, those of us who forget who we are truly are corrupt. It is therefore, very important to keep in mind what your legacy is. Otherwise, you are just another burden animal and receptacle of lies that comprises the "mainstream of thought" in the current global climate, a climate that seems to encourage parasitic behavior.

Edited January 30, 2014 by hagopn

[hagopn]

It is also of extreme importance to get the land back. It is what made you, and without it, you'll break down and disintegrate.