How Is Urartu The First Armenian Kingdom?

[Teutonic Knight]

Hello,

 

Juts a couple of question.

I have read many versions of Armenian origins where often Hitttites, Thraco-Phrygians, Hayasas and Urartu/Nairi are referred to as Armenians.

 

Before 520 BC there were no Armenians!

Even though most Armenian say Armenia history starts 4500 years ago and some others go even further back to 3000 BC.

 

The usual legend says that the Armenians were descendant of Togorn, son of Japheth. In reality, the Bible states that there was a Togarmah, son of Gomer, son of Japheth. If Togarmah equals the Togorm of much later Armenian legend, then in the eyes of the Hebrews, the Armenians were the descendants of the Cimmerians (Gomer). The Bible does not record any descendant of Togarmah. Much later Armenian legend attempts to fill in the blanks.

Today, this theory is championed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. The problem is that the earliest evidence of language in the region was Hurrian which is decidedely non-Indo European.

The Hayasa were neither Proto-Armenians or Hittites. The evidence of the names of their kings disproved this. There is no evidence that they formed the Nairi union which possessed the land south of lake Van. The Urarteans, which came out of the Nairi spoke a Hurrian-derived language. Hayk must have been a Hurrian.

 

Care must be taken when judging a people as "proto-" or otherwise. Some of the peoples mentioned surely became components of the later Armenians, however we can't call them 'Armenians' in its historic sense until most or all of the components come together, which did not occur until 'Armenia' or 'Armenians' are spoken of as a distinct land or people.

During the Urartian period, there were already place-names with the appelation 'Arma-'. More than likely, the Armenians were named for a place.

 

Hittite culture was influenced by Hurrian culture, not based on it. Hurrian kingdom is the Kingdom of Mitanni.

The Nairi were Hurrian-speaking!!! The Urarteans emerged from them, and their language was not even Indo-European

 

We are talking about two different times in history. The Assyrian inscriptions mentioning 'Urartu' (or its variants) date from between 1275 and 640 BC. Urartean inscriptions (c. 830-585 BC) refer to the land as either Nairi or Biainili. The Persian inscriptions mentioning 'Armenia' only begin by 520 BC. Therefore sometime between 585 and 520 BC, Hurrian-speaking Urartu became IE-speaking Armenia.

The fact that the Urarteans did not speak Armenian actually proves the opposite. Sorry, but Armenian came later.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the Hayasa (by name) inhabited their land as known by the Hittites as far back as 3000 BC. The earliest known mention of Hayasa was from about 1400 BC, and did not survive the Hittite eclipse by about 1200 BC. There is no evidence to suggest that Hayasa inhabited the region of Lake Van. It is more accurate to say that where the Hayasa inhabited, became part of the later western portion of the Urartean Empire, but when the Urarteans arrived in the ancient region of Hayasa, it was known by other names.

 

There may have been a 'Thraco-Phrygian' presence in Hayasa as far back as about 1165 BC with the invasion of the proto-Phrygian? or proto-Armenian? Mushki, which also took over several Assyrian provinces further south. It may have been them, which took over the name Hayasa and made it their own.

 

Urarteans were not Armenians. The Hayasans were not originally Armenians, but their name seemingly was taken over by the proto-Armenians.

The Hayasans were not European.

Armenia is not in Europe. It was assumed that it was the Hittites which produced the first iron tools, c. 1400 BC.

 

 

Calling Urartu "the first Armenian Kingdom" is a serious misnomer. The Urarteans, once again, as stated several times already, did not speak Armenian, but a non-IE Hurrian language.

 

The Cimmerians were chased out of the Pontic steppe by the Scythians. After crossing the Caucasus they invaded Urartu where they defeated the Urarteans (714 BC), and then migrated west into northern Anatolia. By 705 they were ravaging Cilicia, which was enough for the Assyrian king Sargon to come to meet them in battle. However, in a night attack, they slew the Assyrian king. In about 696 they an end to the rule of Midas of Phrygia and the same fate befell Gyges, king of Lydia, in 652 BC, but it was the Assyrians which put an end to their military power in about 650 BC. The received narratives relate that they were absorbed by the Scythians, but nowhere is there evidence that the Scythians were present in central Anatolia. In either case the presence of Cimmerians in Urartu leds some credence to a relationship with Armenians. As was stated before, the first reference we have to 'Armenia' or 'Armenians' was the Behistun inscription of Darius I (c. 521 BC). The Cimmerians were present in Urartu by 714 BC.

We have evidence of Anatolian IE (Hittite, Luwian, etc.) languages existing at the same time as Hurrian. We also have the Indo-Aryan names of Mitannian kings who ruled over a powerful Hurrian empire.

The Hittites spoke a language which was not Armenian, and lived in a region which does not coincide with historic Armenia. Armenian doesn't even belong to the same branch of IE as Hittite. The Urarteans spoke a language which was not even IE. We are talking about different groups which were distinct in language and culture. Ethnicity is irrelevent.

Diakonov postulates that the Balkans was the original homeland of IE languages. The Balkans were in fact a center of IE languages as well as a staging area for the migration of various IE groups into the Aegean and Anatolia, but his theory falls to pieces when trying to explain the origins of Indo-Iranian speaking peoples, archaeologically, and his timeline falls far too outside the limit as to the most likely time when IE developed. I neither subscribe to Diakonov or Gamkrelidze/Ivanov regarding IE origins.Hayasa, Hittites, and 'Thraco-Phrygians' were contemporaneously distinct peoples. Each in themselves were not Armenians, but two of these groups, namely the Hayasa and the 'Thraco-Phrygians' were part of the synthesis which became the Armenians.

There is no evidence of Thraco-Phrygian influence amongst the Nairi. The Urarteans who were Nairi spoke a Hurrian language. The Assyrians used the terms Nairi and Urartu interchangeably to denote the same land. The Urartean kings styled themselves 'King of Nairi'. Sometimes the term Urartu was subsumed under the name of Nairi, sometimes it was superimposed on it. Study the translations of the Assyrian and Urartean inscriptions.Before Armenian, there was Urartean, a totally unrelated language, although it can be demonstrated that 'Armenian' borrowed terms from this extinct Hurrian language.

The Urarteans spoke Urartean, a non-Armenian language. It is more accurate in saying that Urartean populations became a component in the make-up of the later Armenian people, but they themselves were not Armenian.

The Hayasa weren't IE-speaking, until the 'Thraco-Phrygians' "assimilated" them. It would take another 500 years before some Urarteans were assimilated. The remnant, called Alarodians ("Urartians") by the Greeks, which inhabited southern Armenia, weren't assimilated until about the 1st century BC.

As I've written before, there is no evidence for IE in the earlier period. The evidence points to Hurrian as the earliest known language of the region. The evidence of the arrival of IE groups including the Hittites, Luwians, proto-Armenians, etc. shows cultural drift from the Balkans, to northwestern Anatolia, into western Anatolia (for the Luwians), to Cilicia, and ultimately into central Anatolia (for the Hittites). The kernal of the Armenians (perhaps the Mushki) can at least be traced to Phrygia, where "Mita of Mushku" of the Assyrian inscriptions was the same as king Midas of Phrygia, of Greek sources. The Hittites did not preserve the language of the Hayasas, period!!! All that remains are narratives of exchanges of letters, and the names of Hayasan kings which are not considered IE.

We don't have to prove that "everyone" in the Hittite Empire spoke Hittite. Prior to the rise of one unified Hittite kingdom, there were various kingdoms whose kings bore Hittite or Hittite-like names. Therefore we know that the Hittite language was widely used in the core area. The only other "native" language known from inscriptions 'Hattian' was named for a people which spoke a non-Indo-European language. The land was named after this non-Indo-European people, and so therefore, a non-Indo-European people were there before the arrival of the Hittites which took over their name.

The problem is that there are many 'assumptions' to Armenian ideas, but no proof. There is no evidence of a Hayasa migration to Urartu at such a remote period. Neither Urartian or Assyrian inscriptions record such a presence. The best that can be said, is that a 'Thraco-Phrygianized' Hayasa laid somewhere between Urartu and the old Hatti land. It was only later that toward the end of the Urartean kingdom, these Hay took possession of the land north of Lake Van, while south of the lake remained predominantly "Alarodian". The Armenians were but one group in the land called by the Persians Armina. Herodotus records that other groups included the Matienians, Saspires, and the Alarodians. The last of these possesses the name of the Urarteans.

We can find traces of Urartean, Hittite, Luwian, Iranian, and Aramaic within the Armenian language itself. As far as I've read, there are no anomalies pointing to yet another language. This only demonstrates that the proto-Armenians were present in western Anatolia (where they picked up Luwian words) and then in central Anatolia (where they picked up Hittite words), and then in the region between Khatti and Urartu (where they picked up Aramaic words), before entering the northern regions of the expanded Urartean kingdom (where they, of course, picked up Urartians words). During the Medo-Persian period, they picked up some Iranian.

 

Again, Armenians exist only 2500 years!

Edited September 18, 2003 by Teutonic Knight

[Sasun]

You forgot to mention one more time that Armenians are not Urarteans

[gamavor]

That is a novelty for me that there are Luwian, Aramaic and God knows what other words in Armenian. Hurrians were miggrants, that is for sure. Hayasa, Nairi people as well as Urartians were "local".

Why Urartu is Armenian? Are Sparta or Troja Greek? Is Rome Italian?Are Celt equal to Brit or Anglo-Saxon?

[MJ]

Assuming that this thread is not driven merely by academic interests may I ask what the relevance of the original question is?

 

What if Armenians have no distinct origin and are migrants to the region and what if Armenians are the genuine natives of the land for 50000 years or more, starting from the local Neanderthals?

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Twilight Bark]

Insisting on reasonable evidence, using common sense, and requiring consistency with the way all the other nations on the planet define themselves and their genesis, one is led to identify the beginning of the Armenian nation with Hayasa, which means "Land of Hays". This is corroborated by Khorenatsi's account, which talks about the Haikazian kingdom as the first stage. "Haikaz" can be deconstructed to "Haik" and "Az", corresponding to the Hayasa-Azzi client kingdom of the Hittites, who signed a peace pact with "the men of Hayasa-Azzi" around 1350 BC. Considering that date as the time of genesis, one would arrive at ~3350 years as the minimum age of the Armenian nation. The later additions (be it Thracians or the Urartu) to the mix are simply different stages in the ever-continuing evolution of a nation. It's true, if we define the beginning of a nation as the time when it achieved its latest anthropological mix, our job would be much simpler: it begins today, for each and every nation in existence, since their mix changed from yesterday to today, as it did on each day of their recognizable existence. But such a route would also be meaningless, would it not?

 

The beginning of the "Hay" nation did not wait for the Iranians to name them, or for Greek story-tellers to find a story that fit their world view.

[Twilight Bark]

Assuming that this thread is not driven merely by academic interests may I ask what the relevance of the original question is?

 

What if Armenians have no distinct origin and are migrants to the region and what if Armenians are the genuine natives of the land for 50000 years or more, starting from the local Neanderthals?

It has no practical relevance. But then, normal, well-adjusted humans do care about some things that are not of immediate utilitarian concern. Something to do with "meaning", or maybe "belonging". Even peasants do that, what with their folk tales, songs, ornaments and such. Strange, huh, those Homo Sapiens folk?

 

[Teutonic Knight]

Twilight Bark,

Your response was what I was looking for and I agree with you.

For example Minoans didn't even speak an IE language and had names like Satur and then boom all of a sudden around 1st millenium BC their language becomes IE and their names Hellenic!

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[bellthecat]

You are making statements that are based on some serious misunderstandings. You can make no certain assumptions about the actual identity of "Urartians" and "Armenians" based solely on language.

 

Nobody knows what the bulk of the Urartian population spoke. Most of the known inscriptions deal with religious things, and say what little they say in a rather curt way.

 

It is perfectly possble that the language used by the ordinary people was completely different from the written language used by the priests and rulling elite in their cuniform inscriptions. Urartuan society does seem to have been very stratified and its elite overly concerned with showy presentation. It may even be the case that those rulers were not actually of the same race as the bulk of the people they ruled over (rather like the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt were Greek, not Egyptian).

 

Nor does anyone know what the "Armenians" mentioned by the Persians actually spoke. No examples of their language survives in written form. In fact, I've been told that no examples of Armenian survives in written form until the invention of the Armenian alphabet. Before that it was the Greek language (and not simply Armenian written using Greek letters) that was used in all literary correspondance within Armenia - i.e the language used for written communication was completely different from that spoken by the bulk of the Armenian population.

 

The evidence that the Urartians were Armenians is simply one of common sense. I might have written this before in another post. Even after almost 1000 years of massacres and invasions the Armenians in Van region were still the majority population until 1915. In that light, the few hundred years between the end of Urartu and the first mention of Armenia is simply not enough time for the entire Urartian population to have vanished (going to who knows where) and to have been replaced by an entirely different population known as Armenians (coming for who knows where).

 

Steve

[MJ]

TK,

 

Per my observations, adults also discuss all types of strange and irrelevant things –sometime purely out of academic interests (which would be the best scenario), some times out of the lack of anything better to do, and other times due to their non-belonging and due to their not finding of a place in life.

 

And I have met and known well some Armenian neo-nazis. May I ask why do you want to meet them?

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Twilight Bark]

.. and I agree with you.

A little strange becuase I don't agree with your conclusion that Armenians exist for "only" 2500 years. That is because I also don't agree with some of your reasoning and "facts". I will not be able to continue the discussion, however, for lack of time.

 

...please stick with facts and ideas and avoid unwinnable battles.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Teutonic Knight]

.. and I agree with you.

A little strange becuase I don't agree with your conclusion that Armenians exist for "only" 2500 years. That is because I also don't agree with some of your reasoning and "facts". I will not be able to continue the discussion, however, for lack of time.

 

TB, that's too bad.

I need an alternative theory coming from an Armenian or another European so please if you have time, present your theories.

So far all I can find are Turkish and Jewish versions of Armenian origins.

 

MJ, well it would be quite interesting to get acquainted with their views. I imagine they're not your typical US-style racialists.

[MJ]

MJ, well it would be quite interesting to get acquainted with their views. I imagine they're not your typical US-style racialists.

But why do you expect that they are different from other neo-Nazzis. What good do you expect from Amrenian neo-nazzis if I may ask?

[KnightOfArmenia]

The idea that the Urartians (or the Hayasa, or the Arme-Shupria) were not Armenian because they didn't have modern Armenian names is ridiculous! When was the last time you met an Ethelred in England? By that logic, England only has a history dating to 1066, when William of Normandy conquered it; the kings such as Ethelred and Egby must not have been English.

 

Names change over time; many of the old Armenian kings had Persian names, such as Trdat (who kind of converted us to Christianity); that doesn't mean they weren't Armenian. Hell, Americans have names like "Harmony Rising" and "Moon Unit Zappa," neither of which are American names; that doesn't mean they aren't American (taking "American" as a culture in and of itself, rather than the "melting pot" that most people try to stick onto it).

[Arpa]

Hello,

 

Juts a couple of question.

I have read many versions of Armenian origins where often Hitttites, Thraco-Phrygians, Hayasas and Urartu/Nairi are referred to as Armenians.

 

Before 520 BC there were no Armenians!

Even though most Armenian say Armenia history starts 4500 years ago and some others go even further back to 3000 BC.

 

The usual legend says that the Armenians were descendant of Togorn, son of Japheth. In reality, the Bible states that there was a Togarmah, son of Gomer, son of Japheth. If Togarmah equals the Togorm of much later Armenian legend, then in the eyes of the Hebrews, the Armenians were the descendants of the Cimmerians (Gomer). The Bible does not record any descendant of Togarmah. Much later Armenian legend attempts to fill in the blanks. in about 650 BC. The received narratives relate that they were absorbed by the

This debate would have taken a more scientific nature had you not quoted the Bible as an historical source.

We may perhaps discuss this in another million years when the historicity of Abraham, Moses and even David were corroborated with even the slightest of physical evidence. Nowhere else there is mention of either. Not in Egyptian, not in Assyrian, not in Babylonian or any other source. It is all a figment of somebody's imagination.

This is silly but if we were to go by Biblical legends we would not be here as Cain slew Abel thereby leaving only a male person to perpetuate humanity. Even if, as some may insist that Cain married his neighbors then, based on that, we would be the progeny of a fratricidal murderer.

That book (of lies)was composed, plagiarized with only one thing in mind, and that was not to prove or disprove the origins of the Armenian.

 

As to the rest of your article it is a direct quote from "Armenology 101" as taught at Ankara U.

[Sasun]

In that light, the few hundred years between the end of Urartu and the first mention of Armenia is simply not enough time for the entire Urartian population to have vanished (going to who knows where) and to have been replaced by an entirely different population known as Armenians (coming for who knows where).

 

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

[Arad9]

This debate would have taken a more scientific nature had you not quoted the Bible as an historical source.

The bible is not one book. you are simply saying whoever is a jew or a christian you are not going to believe them. It seems you have this hatred against Jews and Christians.

This is silly but if we were to go by Biblical legends we would not be here as Cain slew Abel thereby leaving only a male person to perpetuate humanity. Even if, as some may insist that Cain married his neighbors then, based on that, we would be the progeny of a fratricidal murderer.

That book (of lies)was composed, plagiarized with only one thing in mind, and that was not to prove or disprove the origins of the Armenian

you should read the bible before making statements like these, Noah came from Seth and not from Cain.

[Sip]

you are simply saying whoever is a jew or a christian you are not going to believe them. It seems you have this hatred against Jews and Christians.

Well, they can't both be right... and not believing is not the same as hatered. I got a buddy that's got new fancy stories of female conquests every time I talk to him. I don't believe a word he says but I don't hate him one bit either.

[Arad9]

Calling Urartu "the first Armenian Kingdom" is a serious misnomer. The Urarteans, once again, as stated several times already, did not speak Armenian, but a non-IE Hurrian language.

 

 

 

All the tribes in the region more or less assimilated into the Armenians. If you want details I will more than happily show you

 

Armenian's still use some of the words from the "dead" tribal languages.

 

Before 520 BC there were no Armenians!

 

Oh come on! There were Armenians, there were no interactions with the other major civilazations at that time. According to your train of thought, its like saying, if a tree fell in a forest, it would not make any noise, because no one heard it.

[Twilight Bark]

There were Armenians, there were no interactions with the other major civilazations at that time.

Let me quote myself here:

... "Haikaz" can be deconstructed to "Haik" and "Az", corresponding to the Hayasa-Azzi client kingdom of the Hittites, who signed a peace pact with "the men of Hayasa-Azzi" around 1350 BC." ...

 

Hayasa is the officially recorded beginning of the Hye nation. And it predates both Urartu and the Phrygians. It also predates the Hebrew account of the "Hittites", which, at the time Hebrews knew about them were little principalities that fancied themselves as the continuation of the glorious empire (which was no more).

[Harut]

am i mixing something here...

what about Armens?

[nairi]

Let me quote myself here:

... "Haikaz" can be deconstructed to "Haik" and "Az", corresponding to the Hayasa-Azzi client kingdom of the Hittites

Do you have a source for this please?

[Harut]

Again, Armenians exist only 2500 years!

what about, already Armenian, Skayordi (early 7th century b.c.), a semi-independent governor in the southern regions of Urartu?

[Teutonic Knight]

what about, already Armenian, Skayordi (early 7th century b.c.), a semi-independent governor in the southern regions of Urartu?

never heard of it but i'm interested.

 

Anyway I just found out about a book by Mark Chahin called the Kingdom of Armenia. Apparently in this book the gentlemen proves that the Armenian nation was founded in 2500 BC(whoa), I just ordered a used hardcover edition. I hope it's good.

[bellthecat]

Anyway I just found out about a book by Mark Chahin called the Kingdom of Armenia. Apparently in this book the gentlemen proves that the Armenian nation was founded in 2500 BC(whoa), I just ordered a used hardcover edition. I hope it's good.

It's one of those books that should have gone straight from the printers to the shredders! I hope you didn't pay more than 5 dollars for it, you can buy a new copy for about 8.

[Teutonic Knight]

It's one of those books that should have gone straight from the printers to the shredders! I hope you didn't pay more than 5 dollars for it, you can buy a new copy for about 8.

Ehh...I paid 10 bucks.

Why do you think it's not good?

The only reason I baught it is because it dates Armenian history to 2500 BC.

Show me another book like that