Armenian Flood Legend?

[nairi]

I recently came across this sentence in "The Greek Myths", Volume One, by Robert Graves (Penguin, 1st ed., 1955), Chapter 38, Deucalion's Flood:

 

Who can tell me more about this?

 

Hope to hear from you soon,

Nairi

 

[ August 11, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: nairi ]

[bellthecat]

It doesn't say that, it says "Xisuthros was a hero of the Sumerian Flood legend..."

[nairi]

Not in mine. I swear. I'm checking as we're speaking. It's definitely Armenian. I found Berosus speaking of the "Sumarian Flood" and that made sense to me. But in my edition of Graves (first published 1955, reprinted 1955), he speaks of the "Armenian Flood". I guess it must be a misprint.

 

Thanks for your reply though.

 

Nairi

[bellthecat]

I've got the single volume 1958 edition, reprinted in 1980. In the foreword, Graves writes "since revising The Greek Myths in 1958...." - so I suppose one thing he revised was changing Armenian to Sumerian!

[nairi]

Thanks! I guess so... Well, at least now we know it was definitely a misprint. Does your edition have a map of the Greek world as well (right after intro) with Armenia in what is now Eastern Turkey and Armenia?

 

[ August 15, 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: nairi ]

[bellthecat]

Yes, same map probably.

[nairi]

Still in "The Greek Myths", I found this:

 

Who can tell me more about this, i.e. "amazon" being an Armenian word?

 

Nairi

[MJ]

I have heard a story, lately...

 

When the Arc rested on Mt. Ararat, and when Noah found (upon the return of the dove) that the he had reached land, he decanted with his family and with all the animals into Nakhichevan.

 

There where few Armenian kids playing there at the time. They yelled to each other, "Hey guy, circus has come to town..."

[nairi]

smile.gif

[Sip]

Chapter 100? Wow, that sounds like some book! Is that just in Volume 1?

[nairi]

It's called pseudo-intellectualism, Sipan jan. I thought you knew me better by now. The longest chapter is ten pages. 104 chapters in Volume 1 (370 pages), and 66 chapters in Volume 2 (376 pages).

[Sip]

Ah! I am learning ...

 

I checked on Amazon, and you can actually buy the 1972 reprint of vol 1 for $2 (+$2 shipping in US). That's less than 4 cents per chapter!!! Awesome deal if you ask me.

 

If no one here wants/needs it, I may actually get it. There are a lot worse things I could do with $4

 

[ October 06, 2002, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Arpa]

Nairi, this is for you.

I had boook,arked it some time ago to get back to it and I had practically forgotten. I was editting my bookmarks and voila.

You may also remember my (independent) assertions that the legend of Noah is original Armemian. It had to be. I will spare the obvious.

BTW, this Edward Sargsyan looks very interesting. You may find his collection of photos of stalagties/mites. Just search by his name.

 

Here it is.

 

http://www.arminco.com/hayknet/tapan.htm

 

[nairi]

Thanks!

[Mher]

Barev dzez

 

Nairi you might find this interesting, or should anyone would, it seems like as science progresses there is a new light that comes along to what really is this Noah’s flood, however there is no conclusive evidence is yet to be found but I find this article interesting.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4377...ws9-14-2000.asp

 

 

Is it Noah’s Flood?

For all the talk, these people still don’t take the Bible seriously. The flood they describe is definitely not the worldwide watery judgment of the Bible. This Web site has already addressed the fallacious claim that Noah’s Flood was really a local flood in the Black Sea area—see Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea?. More detail can be found in my article, ‘The Black Sea flood: definitely not the Flood of Noah’, CEN Technical Journal 14(1):40–44, 2000.

 

The Bible says that Noah’s flood was global, but the Black Sea flood was only local. The Bible says the Flood covered the highest mountains, but the Black Sea flood only rose by a few hundred feet. It didn’t even cover the mountains in the local area. The Bible says that Noah built an ark, but the Black Sea flood needed no such vessel. The water came up so slowly that the residents would have walked to higher land. The Bible says that everyone outside the ark drowned, but the Black Sea flood simply displaced the residents. The Bible says that only the animals and birds on the ark survived, but not so with the local Black Sea flood. The Bible says there was forty days of rain, but the Black Sea flood had no rain. The Bible says that the Flood ended when the waters went down and land was dry. But the waters of the Black Sea flood have not gone down yet. The list could go on. There is absolutely no resemblance whatever between the Black Sea flood and the biblical Flood of Noah.

 

These people know that the Black Sea flood does not fit with the Bible. So how do they justify their claim? Simple. They say the Bible got it wrong. They do not read the Bible as an accurate historical document of a global Flood. Their link with Noah’s Flood is totally arbitrary. They need a flood, so presto, pluck Noah’s Flood out of the air. It is a good flood to pick, because it creates a lot of interest. By saying that Noah’s Flood was a local flood, do they think they can dismiss the implications of the real global Flood described in the Bible, viz. that God judges human sin?

 

Even their claim that the Black Sea flood is the basis for flood legends does not make sense. Almost every culture on Earth includes an ancient flood story. Details vary, but the basic plot is the same. The classic example is the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh, but there are flood stories among the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese and even the Irish. Although a long stretch of the imagination, it may be possible to envisage these legends originating from the Black Sea flood some 7000 years ago. But what about the flood legends of the American Indians and the Australian Aborigines? The latter supposedly entered Australia 40,000 years ago, some 30,000 years before the Black Sea flood. Was there a good news service in ‘Neolithic’ times that carried the stories ‘down under’? The explanation cannot even account for the flood legends. It makes more sense that all the legends are corrupted memories of the true, world-wide Flood of Noah, as recorded in the Bible.

 

What really happened?

If we accept that the Black Sea flooded towards the end of the Ice Age, we can link it with biblical chronology and the true history of the world. There is a good case for the Ice Age being post-Flood. Ussher’s Bible-based chronology places the Flood of Noah at 2348 BC, and creationist research suggests that the Ice Age took 500 years after the Flood to reach its maximum and a further 200 years to melt back. (Remember these are estimates only.) Thus, the Black Sea flood occurred after most of the continental ice sheets had melted, thereby raising ocean levels and allowing the Mediterranean to spill into the Black Sea some 700 years after the Flood.

 

So, with the Flood at 2348 BC, the Ice Age peak would have been around 1850 BC and the melt back completed by 1650 BC at which time the Black Sea area flooded. The discrepancy between this and the published date of 5600 BC (7600 years ago) for the Black Sea Flood is because the date of the Black Sea flood is based on 14C analyses. The problem is that the 14C dates have not been corrected for the increase in the atmospheric ratio of 14C/12C following the Flood. The sudden burial of masses of vegetation changed the balance in the carbon reservoirs on the earth, and equilibrium is still being approached. Properly corrected 14C dates would agree with the biblical date. Thus, the Black Sea flood is one of many post-Flood catastrophes that have occurred around the world (e.g., Siberian mammoths, Iceland’s mega-flood).

 

Conclusion

It is clear from the geological investigations that there is a good case for a sudden drowning of the Black Sea Shelf thousands of years ago. The weight of evidence is compelling, even more so now with Ballard’s reports of definite signs of human habitation beneath the water.

 

But the link with Noah’s Flood is wrong—nothing but wild, unsubstantiated speculation. Not one of the characteristics of the Black Sea flood matches the tell-tale signature of the Flood described in the Bible. The assertion that the biblical record is just a corrupted version of flood legends derived from their Black Sea flood is both wrong and arrogant. That doesn’t even explain how flood legends arose, especially those in places like America and Australia. On the contrary, the flood legends are corrupted recollections of the one-and-only worldwide Flood, the true account of which is faithfully recorded in the Bible.

 

Rather than Noah’s Flood, the Black Sea evidence points to a local, post-Flood catastrophe at the end of the Ice Age around 1650 BC.

[jackobolo]

1. Amazon, "the priests of the Moon goddess." Ama = Moon goddess. Zon = children/priest/progeny, much like the present Armenian variant of "Zun," as in "ArkayaZun," ("of royal birth.")

 

2. Yes, you guessed it correctly, Xisuthros was the hero of the Armenian Flood legend, somewhat equated with the Sumerian "Utnapistim" by later "scholars," thus the cause for the "revision."

 

Remember, today to be a "historical revisionist" is a negative thing, therefore, to "revise" the words of original source material is, well, a bad thing!

[Arpa]

jakobolo wrote;

Remember, today to be a "historical revisionist" is a negative thing, therefore, to "revise" the words of original source material is, well, a bad thing!

Not by me. The only "negative thing" is revisionism ala Turque. It fugures, they have as teachers the master revisionists who wrote that the universe was created a few centuries ago. And some idiotic Christians have gone as far as to calculate that the universe was created 2564 years, 40 days, 40 minutes and 40 seconds ago.

Isn't that when the Armenians were subjugating the Hittites?

Of course not.

The world was not yet cretaed!!:)

[jackobolo]

AHA, I think I know who this Arpa is! How are you??

 

Anyway, after years of debating with you on this matter, I have found that we haven't changed our minds

 

Revisionism is what we have endured of since the day Gregory the Deluminator walked in and burned our history.

 

Gavoukjian is the final word for now, until the next scholar decides to defy the law of NATO/USSR and truly follow in his footsteps.

[nairi]

1. Amazon, "the priests of the Moon goddess." Ama = Moon goddess. Zon = children/priest/progeny, much like the present Armenian variant of "Zun," as in "ArkayaZun," ("of royal birth.")

But is/was "amazon" an Armenian word? As in, how is "ama" moon goddess in Armenian?

 

"Ama" nowadays means "homeless" (as well as "but"), no? And "am" (not sure if this is relevant) means "year", right? So where exactly is the link? From what I found in Armenian books -- not that I have the most relevant books for this... -- Amazon is said to be of Greek origin.

 

Thanks for replying and welcome to Hyeforum!

[Arpa]

Amazon is supposed to mean "breastless". An excerpt from the site below. AS to "am" to mean moon? It is not ama-zon, neither it is am-azon, it is a-mazon (to mean without. I have no idea, except that "am" as "tear" may be remotely connected as the the year is phases of the moon. "am" as year is common with the Arabic "'am" to mean the same. Mah is more likely to mean moon, common with Persian, and "mahik"(crescent) to mean "small moon"

"The name Amazon itself means "without breast", referring to the legend that in order to ease their use of the bow, women would sear one breast of a girl child when an infant, in order that the breast would not develop. This is perhaps the most barbaric of the customs ascribed to the Amazons, and the ultimate example of their denial of femininity in order to increase their effectiveness in battle. This story is told by the ancient author Diodorus of Sicily, who describes the procedure in gruesome detail."

 

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/...ct_fiction.html

[nairi]

Arpa jan, thanks. A-mazon is what I was taught and it's what that excerpt in The Greek Myths says as well. But is "mazon" an Armenian word then? I can't find it. "Mazu" is a ball game and we all know what "maz" is. Or is it "a", "ma" (mother/moon???) and "zun"? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me... Do you know? Edited May 29, 2003 by nairi

[Arpa]

Shut me up! I am being silly.

Speaking of breasts.. I thought (a)"mazon" was sour milk.

Seriously though than you Nairi for added info.

[nairi]

Shut me up! I am being silly.

Speaking of breasts.. I thought (a)"mazon" was sour milk.

Seriously though thank you Nairi for added info.

Lol!

[Twilight Bark]

Arpa jan, thanks. A-mazon is what I was taught and it's what that excerpt in The Greek Myths says as well. But is "mazon" an Armenian word then? I can't find it. "Mazu" is a ball game and we all know what "maz" is. Or is it "a", "ma" (mother/moon???) and "zun"? Sounds a bit far-fetched to me... Do you know?

Hi Nairi,

I don't have any pet theories about the subject, but let me contribute the few crumbs of information lying around in my brain. "Arma" (a variation of "ama" mentioned in this thread?) was the (I think Luwian) Moon Goddess. Hence my pet speculation that Arma-wanda may be the origin of the word Armenian (Arma-wanda --> Armanda --> Armen). If you make this bold assumption, A®ma-dzin makes sense as at least related to Armenians, perhaps as co-religionists if not cousins or closer. Just some crumbs for thought.

TB

 

P.S. Greek myths about personal and place names are often conjured up stories to explain non-Greek names from Hellenized Anatolia. Countless "Greek" names (coming with their obligatory myth, of course) have wonderfully sensible explanations as distorted Hittite/Luwian names.

[nairi]

Hi Nairi,

I don't have any pet theories about the subject, but let me contribute the few crumbs of information lying around in my brain. "Arma" (a variation of "ama" mentioned in this thread?) was the (I think Luwian) Moon Goddess. Hence my pet speculation that Arma-wanda may be the origin of the word Armenian (Arma-wanda --> Armanda --> Armen). If you make this bold assumption, A®ma-dzin makes sense as at least related to Armenians, perhaps as co-religionists if not cousins or closer. Just some crumbs for thought.

TB

Interesting! Thanks!

 

The only major link I can see between Amazons and Armenians is that Amazons supposedly lived in the Black Sea area, homeland of the (later) Armenians. But are there any legends or myths of Armenian warrior women who used to cut off one breast?