How Is Urartu The First Armenian Kingdom?

[hagopn]

Some review.

 

- In Behistunian Incription (520 BC) Daruis Ist metions the Satrap of Armina Kingdom.

- In "Anabsis" and "Kyuropaedia" (400 BC) Xenophone describes in details the well organised Armenian state with its kings Orontes (Yervand) and Tigran. He metions that the people of that country (between lake Urmia to Northern Euphrates) spoke a single language.

- During the conquests of Alexander the Great (approx. 320-300) Armenia was already a significant player in the region.

- 189 BC is the start of the Artashesian dynasty.

- 75 - 55 BC Armenian kingdom at it zenith

 

How much did it took the Romans to develop into an organised state? 300 years (approx. 700 - 400 BC)

How much did it took the Persians? 300 years (approx. 800 - 500 BC)

Greeks had the same timeline. And it's story with each and every civilization of that times.

 

If Armenia was already an organised state by 520, BC it clearly existed some 300 years back.

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.

[MJ]

While lacking adequate credentials for making professional and academic judgments on the academic subject of Urartu, Hittites, etc, I’d like to make some comments about some late methods and methodologies used in this thread.

 

On one hand we have a very well known and recognized professional (Ronald Suny), who has allegedly written something “on 44 pages.” There is also another known professional historian (Armen Aivazyan) whom he has “rebuttaled.” The readers of this forum know neither what Aivazyan has written about nor what Suny has argued. We also have a new and anonymous member in this forum of with credentials on the subject no one knows about (I presume), who makes some claims which constitute nothing but character assassination. Furthermore, he provides no arguments to support his point of view but makes basically charges on a pseudo-political level, such as Dyakonov has taken a pro-Azeri stance “on some other issues,” which may or may not have any relevance to the subject of current discussion.

 

Then, someone else is alleged to have done something (which we don’t know anything about) for being a “politically motivated” scholar or a “careerist,” basically a “sell-out.”

 

Furthermore, whenever I hear criticism about “revisionism” in history, it raises some red flags with me. Are we to understand that subjecting a particular narration of a specific historic topic written by someone in the past cannot be subjected to revisionism? How is it that even in more precise sciences people renew their views on established theories and update them as they learn more, but in the discipline of history such an “ism” is abomination? Why cannot certain views on history be revised, if I may ask?

[hagopn]

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

Edited November 26, 2003 by Sasun

[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

Edited November 26, 2003 by Sasun

[hagopn]

So far, as is typical of the "retractors" of the critical position of today's ridiculously distortionist "establishment" Armenologist, no one makes issue of the actual issue.

 

As was the "response" to Armen Aivazian by Levon Avdoyan, the response type will invariably be in the form of non-factual "character defamation." Levon also did not have the "heart" (probably the evidence) to seriously provide us a counter-critical viewpoint based on facts. It seems neither do our self-appointed commissars.

 

By the way, there was a stinging critical review of Levon Avdoyan's prepostrous "response" to Armen Aivazian written by Eddie Arnavoudian and published on Groong. I will post it here if he gives me permission.

 

Needless to say, the "established" mindset based on distortionist dogmas beset by revisionist (or, should I say, "evidence omissionist") "icons of Armenology" is alive and well. But what is even more disturbing is that genuine attempts to cricise this seriously anti-intellectual status quo are treated with utter contempt by self-appointed "westernized empiricist supremacists" on this humble forum as well.

 

One small exercise of true re-examination of evidence, and we shall hopefully see who can actually contribute:

 

1. PROVE IT that the Urartu/Urashtu/Arminia/Harminuap mentioned on the Behisitun rock are in reference to "differing" kingdoms. CLUE: The overwhelming consensus among HONEST and NON_POLITICIZED academics is that Urashtu/Urarty, Arminia, and Harminuap are one and the same political (or perhaps geographic) entity/region. The name Armenia and Urartu or its variants are NOT mentioned together in any of the xxxx languages on the Behisitun rock.

 

1b. Can you tell me how many and which languages those were used on the inscription at Behisitun? (response in private please.)

 

1c. Can you tell me which forms were used by which language? (response in private please.)

Edited November 23, 2003 by hagopn

[DominO123]

... there is two Steves, this one here is the author of the virtual Ani site, there is another that was one of the buzz at the Armenian diaspora forum.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

I just made an interesting addition to my library:

 

Historian from Armenia, Artak Movsesian, recently published a book entitled _Նախամաշտոցյան Հայաստանի Գրային Համակարգերը_ ("The Pre-Mashtotsian Systems of Writing in Armenia"). I am still in teh process of digesting this book. I will let you chaps know what it's about.

 

There is another interesting scholar (physicist) named Karen Tokhatian (Կարեն Թոխաթյան) who had researched the rock carvings of the entire region spanning from Armenia and Northern Iran to the Balkan Peninsula. A fascinating point was made by Mr. Tokhatian during an interview on television last summer: i.e. Armenia is the land with the highest density of rock carvings. He also showed the richness and variety of themes to be unsurpassed by anywhere outside Armenia.

 

The conclusion still stands that Armenians are primordial in their ethnogenesis. Their modern "national" ethos was formed on that land, although it is impossible to pinpoint beyond the 23rd century when this maturation into a coherent culture took place. It is evident, by all contemporary accounts, that the entire land of the "Subartu" was populated by federated and monocultural tribes. They were all described with the same attributes by their boastful foes. It is hihgly doubtful that they were of Caucasian origins. It is more likely, as Vyacheslav Ivanov states, to be from the shores of Van lake and vicinity. Gavoukjian also proves this with his extensive work in comparing the Sumerian lexicon with the Armenian, and his argument is well made that those mentioned as "Subari" were the very Armenians in constant contact with the Sumerians. The "Ancient Kingdom of Aratta" by Artak Movsesian is also a fascinating and rich resource on this topic.

 

That is my opinion on the matter thus far. Fraudulent "scholarship" that ignore evidence notwithstanding, there is good work being done in Armenia and outside of Armenia by dedicated professional as well as amateur scholars. In any case, it will be interesting to see what sort of data will come about from all this research, although the outcome is partly predictable; i.e. there is absolutely no evidence of migration, no evidence of "genocide" or "assimilation" of "multiple tribes/cutures."

 

Even Xenophon's chronicles remember no other "nation" living among the Armenians. It would hardly be credible that there would be "total" assimilation of the so-called "Urartuans" within a 100 year span: i.e. Is that not what our "establishmentarians" claim to be the later period of the "migration" process, te 6th century? Well, how in the world were the "Urartuans" completely "off the face of the earth" in all manners by the 5th century? How come their name had to be invented in the 20th century by a club of anti-nationlist imperial "communist" commissars? Why, indeed, did their name not appear at all in centuries where no such "revisionist metholodogies" were adopted by "victor nations?"

 

Howcome, indeed, do the king lists very closely resemble those itemized by Khorenatsi? Why do our Evidence Omissionists refuse to accept the dating of Khorenatsi already established by competent scholarship in Armenia? Why does everything Armenian have to be "proven beyond teh shadow of a doubt and must withstand modern forensci tests" while "persian continuity" is not questioned, for example?

Edited November 23, 2003 by hagopn

[Armen]

Well, the distortion of "Urartian"/Araratian history started with Boris Piotrovski. I think he is the one responsible for all the chain of future mutations on this kingdom's (call it Ararat or Armenia etc.) history.

 

His idea of "Urartian language" and "unique Urartian culture" was first recycled by soviet Armenian and non-Armenian historians, then it went out to the Europe and the USA.

[hagopn]

Diakonov was the one who laid the foundation for the "Hurrianization" of the so-re-invented "Urartuan" language. In other words, he took it a step further. To complicate matters even more, "Hurrian" was, for whatever reason, identified as a possible relative of the "Finno-Ugric" language group to which the Magyar and the Finns belong. This was ot proven, but this is still an existing and accepted thesis among some circles. Since Diakonov is currently under such scrutiny in Russia as to be named a "plain liar" by prominent scholars, then I would suspect that he has committed many distortions in his "analysis" of the Hurrian identity as well.

 

One such example is the etymology of the so-called "Wachukani," the supposed "capital of the Hurrian kingdom of Mittanni." The "explanation" given by Diakonov was so convoluted, that I have already forgotten its dimensions. Hovik Nersesian's etymology was precisely based on that which the "Hurrians" were described as: (i.e. the so-called "Hurrians" with a possible "chariot riding Aryan aristocracy"). The "Mittanni" was a kingdom of "Chariot riders," or, in other words, of "Vachakan." Since we know that the cuneiform was deficient in not specifying vowels (as all ancient forms of script were), it would probably be safe to assume that the correct pronounciation of "wachukani" could be "Wachakani."

 

However, it is absolutely uniform that any connection with the Armenians is absolutely and adamantly denied except when a qualified Armenian intervenes. It is simply unprecedented behavior that occurs when it concerns Armenians. "Turkish" lobbies must be as strong as was Mustafa Kemal's idea of willing his fortune to the Turkish Historical Society. The entire idea of this "secular state" was to erase its past. Would they spare any expense? Would their "allies" (sponsors) spare any expense?

 

Our short-sighted "scholars" sponsored by even more short-sighted "parties" have helped to create this alarming situation.

Edited November 23, 2003 by hagopn

[bellthecat]

So there are vested interests at work trying to say there is no direct ethnic or cultural connection between Urartu and early Armenia Well, doh! - tell us something we don't all already know! Equally, there are vested interests trying to say that there is. And neither group uses anything that approaches a proper historical analysis.

 

But you are still not telling us anything specific ...

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Sasun]

Historian from Armenia, Artak Movsesian, recently published a book entitled _Նախամաշտոցյան Հայաստանի Գրային Համակարգերը_ ("The Pre-Mashtotsian Systems of Writing in Armenia"). I am still in teh process of digesting this book. I will let you chaps know what it's about.

That would be interesting to know. I heard that there was one but it seemed it was never uncovered.

[hagopn]

I beg to differ with Steve on a few points ...

 

1. There are actually three vested interests: 1) Those foreign interests (pro-Turkish, directly anti-Armenian, or otherwise) who have made great efforts to utilize and/or produce "history" that refutes any possibility of Armenians predating Behisitun, 2) Those Armenian lackeys or non-Armenian lackeys working as "Armenologists" who are mostly interested in perpetuating their careers, and 3) those who are irate about the entire situation that has been building up since perhaps before 1915. A stateless people will be subject to historical meandering if they have powerful foes.

 

2. There are very cogent works of historical analysis by Martiros Gavoukjian. Just becuase you are not aware of Gavoukjian does not make him an "obscure and unknown author." The fact is that he was extensively published inside and outside of Armenia, and the fact that the "establishment" did not acknowledge him puts the onus on them, not him. Gavoukjian was a man recognized by his colleagues, including Diakonov, with whom Gavoukjian was in frequent contact. Artak Movsesian is another one who is strong in this historical period, and he has been publishing interesting monographs dealing with the various political entities on the Armenian plateau. Peter Jensen was also not an "obscure" scholar by any means. He was in fact the President of the Royal Assyriological Society at the time he was participating in the excavations of Hittites sites and decipherment of their language.

 

 

3. As I mentioned in another post, the lack of continuity in the evidence will cause for opinions to be adopted as "theory" in a field that has a staggering number of chronological gaps. There is no other possibility, and therefore the treatment of ancient history is inherently politicized. The only hope we can possibly have is to take into account ALL existing evidence.

 

4. If you are not familiar with whichever author or title, then let me know, and I can possibly direct you to him/her/it.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

That would be interesting to know. I heard that there was one but it seemed it was never uncovered.

There are many systems from different periods that Movsesian has covered in his book. I am still going through the book, which is filled with a wealth of information on all systems from rock carvings to hieroglyphs.

[hagopn]

Gavoukjian's (Kavoukjian's) book "Armenia, Subartu, and Sumer" is available at Narek.com. Enjoy!

 

http://narek-store.com/shop/SearchResults....exid=57SW6P2TWA

[hagopn]

This title by Artak Movsesian, "Barepasht Arganeri Ashkharakalutiune," is also a very good source on pre-Artashesian Armenia.

 

http://narek-store.com/shop/SearchResults....exid=6J64YKUR9V

[hagopn]

Good article that speaks about Peter Jensen's book by an anonymous author, although I don't fully agree (although, there is partial truth to it) with the broad brush indictment of Jews or Zionists otherwise. The author also ignores (or is unaware of) the fact that nationalist (fascist, actually) Georgian scholarship declared that Urartu is more closely related to the Caucasian peoples (which naturally is principally in reference to them). Gamkrelize was also of that persuasian that tried to "Caucasianize" the newly invented "Urartuan" identity.

 

Unfortunately, Jensen's book is not for sale anywhere. I did fresh searchs on all the search engines and book search engines (including Amazon.com), but nothing came up. So far. Looks like I will have to expedite, rush, the translation efforts---

 

***************************************

 

"There has been a lot of revisionism or historical distortion in the so-called "Armenian studies" program in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the "west". The reason that Jews usually are interested in Armenian studies is to make the Armenians fit into their "view" of history. The first thing they try to do is to work as hard as possible to disassociate Armenians from Urartu/Armina. Berich Hrozny, an anthropologist from the early 19th century, fought tooth and nail to prevent his colleague's theory from being accepted, and he did so without much academic support. He used his clout instead and bullied the man out of the academic world. The man's name was Peter Jensen, and Jensen's theory was that the Armenians, the Hittites, the "Urartuans" et al were all ethnically Armenian! He was so convinced of this that he dedicated his first ever thesis on the Hittites to a lengthy comparison study entitled “Hittiten und Armenischen”. Subsequently, the Jews worked hard to protect their historical theories, mostly centered on the biblical landscape, which unfortunately for Armenians, encompasses Armenian territory. My suspicion is that if the truth about Armenians ever really did come out, it will cause a lot of commotion that will discredit much of the scholarship that has been going on thus far. And forget about the idea of the "promised land, the land of the Hittites, the Amorites, blah blah" if the Armenian presence in historical Armenia is placed beyond the 3rd millenium BC. For this reason and for this reason only has there been so much "interest" in Armenian studies.

 

Indeed fanatical groups and their fascistic religions do prevent them from being of reason, true reason, and for this reason they will do all to prevent the truth about us from coming out. Turks will probably never accept it that they are a people with primitive ideals. They still name their kids Atilla, Genghiz, Turgut... Would you name your kid after a known bestial butcher? The Jews will never accept that the very root concept of the "Chosen people" is inherently fascistic and racist in tone. Such is the landscape for now, but only for now.

 

As to the Urartu fiasco: Indeed the most adamant opposition to the acceptance of ethnic affinity between the Armenians, Hittites, "Urartuans" and other "ethnicities" cited in Eastern Europe has been by in large scholars of Jewish extraction. That is a pattern that cannot be ignored, and it has a clearly definable history to it.

 

For instance, the recent collaborative team of linguists, that of Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz Gamkrelidze (indeed a Georgian who is a man of integrity it seems), who published their monumental works dealing with the origins of the Indo-European languages, were only opposed (obsessively it seems) by a scholar named Diakonov. Not surprisingly, the Russian Ivanov and the Georgian Gamkrelidze have concluded that, indeed, the origins of the Proto-Indo-European languages is not only most certainly in Armenia, but are more precisely located around the vicinity of Van. Also not surprisingly, Diakonov is a Jew. The main man in the US in support of Diakonov's theory is, none other than, Prof. James Russell of Harvard, who is, also not surprisingly, a Jew. It seems that they have a hard time breaking from their own ethno-religious paradigms and accept cold hard historic and academically sound theories and facts. It is more comforting for them to "re-write" as they please our history to fit their own desired pattern.

 

Jews are trying to say that Jews and Armenians are closely related but this is totally false and absurd (Armenians are Aryan and Jews are Semites) and the only reason they do this is to stretch their history further back than it actually is, while at the same time conveniently trying to shorten ours, to meet them "half-way" so to speak.

 

It must be noted that a "sudden surge" in Armenological interest arose during the first decade of the 20th century, and this "surge" was accompanied by a very vulgar and rabid anti-Armenian propaganda campaign concentrated mainly in Germany before WII and its Jewish academia. The paradigm of the day was that the "Armenian was a conniving filthy bastard" while the "Noble and Warrior Turk was the man of the year." Many noted (in those days) "Germans" (not really, guess who?) academics and members of the elite in general ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT THE OLDEST ARYAN RACE, the Hittites, could have been in the remotest manner associated with the "mongrelic Armenians." The Rothschild family and its wealth is an unfortunate reality in our history, along with, I must say, the wealth and power of the Nobels, the Rockefellers (who were not necessarily Jewish), and other notable "robber barons". The political role that they did indeed play in the misfortunes of Armenians is very well known to virtually all, with the sad exception of the brainwashed "denizen" of the You Esh of Ay.

 

It must be stressed that the Rothschild’s did indeed have control of somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of Caspian oil (experts diverge as to the actual amount, but agree on fair approximations) at the turn of the 20th century. Yes, Zionism played a major role in the perpetration of the Armenian Genocide, and there is a huge library of evidence that supports this. The accused party will not ever admit to such guilt. Two criminals, fascist Turks and Zionists, will stick together in this game.

 

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that the "brothers in genocide" had in fact taken the side of Turkish imperialism with the hope of gaining the foothold in Palestine. That is only derived from simple logic. There is indeed a well-documented (first hand, by the way) account of the Zionist attempt at literally buying Palestine from under the "Sick Man of Europe" under desperate debt. There in the room had sat Amira Dadian, an advisor of the Sultan, who had absolutely warned the Sultan against accepting such an offer. In this same account, there is clearly listed names of individuals involved in the affair, but the preconceived notion of "the Armenian who likes to blame all but himself" is used to prematurely and quite unintelligently dismiss such fascinating possibilities of the workings behind the Genocide.

 

Read Christopher Walker's account of Theodore Herzl's participation in the Genocide. Read The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide by Yair Auron. Read Dadrian. One of Dadrian's (first hand) sources reveals clearly that, indeed, Talaat (Turkey's minister of the interior at the time of the Armenian Genocide and the one who gave the actual orders) was a Jew. He was not merely "of Jewish blood," but was indeed very conscious of his identity. These are merely the (relatively) circumstantial pieces of evidence at hand. The more direct ones, one can consult any decent Armenian book store. The books are there to read. Yes, they are of eyewitness accounts of events that occurred during and just before the terrible period of Genocide.

 

As you will see, they are not only trying to keep the Genocide in the dark, but most of our history that predates theirs. It is crystal clear that we have been around way before their earliest record. Through the examination and analysis of new linguistic and archeological findings, they now think that the Armenians were native to their land since the dawn of history. According to at least one new theory, the point of origin of the earliest Indo-European tribes is Asia Minor itself, somewhere past 6th century millenium BC.

 

The ones who pretend to be compassionate to Armenians are indeed more than likely the "good cops." The real neutrals are not even interested in Armenians. They are ignorant about Armenians. Those who dig deep and get involved in Armenian affairs are more than likely meddlers who wish to merely throw herrings.

 

Over the past many years most Jews in prominent posts have been uttering and writing anti-Armenian comments. For example, every concocted anti-Armenian article written by a Turkish or pro-Turkish historian on the planet was being regularly published in the Jewish Times! As a matter of fact, nine out of ten pro-Turkish or anti-Armenian articles full of lies and distortions, particularly about the Armenian Genocide, is written by Jews and published in Jew owned newspapers such as the New York Times and we will be exposing them all."

Edited November 25, 2003 by hagopn

[DominO123]

Oh man, is that supposed to be a joke or what?

 

And when are you going to show the evidences you were talking about? What .. the last article has anything to do with all this?

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[MJ]

I love when one gets to the main point so fast... <_<

[THOTH]

Yeah...and there is that "we" thing again...and I thought you guys believed that schizophrenia was a disease of the Jews...

[hagopn]

Oh man, is that supposed to be a joke or what?

 

And when are you going to show the evidences you were talking about? What ... the last article has anything to do with all this?

 

 

What are the "evidences" that you are waiting for? If you are specific, maybe we, you and I, can work out some "evidences."

 

The article above is posted on some forum, and the interesting thing about it is that the chap knows about Jensen's book. That is what ...it has to do with it.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Edited November 26, 2003 by Sasun

[hagopn]

Yeah...and there is that "we" thing again...and I thought you guys believed that schizophrenia was a disease of the Jews...

Who is "you guys" who are thinking that "Jews suffer from schizophrenia?"

[DominO123]

What are the "evidences" that you are waiting for?   If you are specific, maybe we, you and I, can work out some "evidences."

 

The article above is posted on some forum, and the interesting thing about it is that the chap knows about Jensen's article.   That is what ... it has to do with it.

This article I have already read, the work I do have it(the forum which it has been posted, the authors know I do have it).

 

Steve asked you a simple question, and it was to bring what you wanted to talk about and stop refering to obscure people... you answered by providing more names and why they are not obscure, but I do still fail to see what you are trying to tell us, I mean, what is your point? Just write an essay, with all the references evidences and I will read them, I'm not afraid to read, I've read any single words you wrote in this forum and know many of the individuals you refer to, I can track ANY work around the world no matter if they don,t sell them anymore. But then what? I mean, I still fail to see what is your point, what is your main topic all about?

Edited November 26, 2003 by Sasun

[hagopn]

Historiography, especially when dealing with ancient periods, requires rigorous honesty.

 

I was mentored by a great scholar (oops!, Jewish) when studying in college. His golden rules on historical analysis were sound and are still applicable:

 

1. You cannot ever assume "parallels" to modern eras and pretend they are fully applicable to the past period you are studying.

 

2. You must, with absolute rigor, take account of all the existing primary evidence.

 

3. Understand that you cannot escape the irony of bias due to the lack of solid chronological data from those periods in history.

 

4. You must put aside "maintream" prejudices in order to successfully analyze the situation.

 

Diakonov was Jewish too (oops! "Bad Hagop, bad, bad Hagop...)

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

Edited November 26, 2003 by Sasun

[hagopn]

But then what? I mean, I still fail to see what is your point, what is your main topic all about?

Do you mean to tell me that after having repeated the central point perhaps 50 times, you still have not grasped what the "point" is?

 

What is your mother tongue?

[Sasun]

Dear Hagop, I don't know much on the subject, it seems to me you are being asked for more explanations and clarifications (well, not always but in most cases), so please don't take anything personal and stay on the topic This is a friendly environment