How Is Urartu The First Armenian Kingdom?

[Harut]

never heard of it but i'm interested.

"M. t. a. 781 t. [i believe this should be 681]Asorestani arqa Sinakheribi vordiner Sanasar@ yev Adrameleq@, spanelov irents hor@, pakhchum yev patsparvum en Skayordu mot: Skayordin nrants @ndunum e yev hogher tramadrum Haykakan lernashkharhi ir ishkhanutyan tak gtnvogh harav-arevmtyan masum, Asorestani sahmanneri mot: Skayordin arden grete ankakh er Vani` gnalov tulatsogh tagavornerits:

Nra vordi Paruyr@ liovin azatagrvum e nrants ishkhanutyunits yev ir dzerqi tak miavorum lernashkharhi voghj arevmtyan mas@` Vana l&its minchev Yeprat:

...

Dranits heto Paruyr Nahapet@ Mediayi tagavorits tag e stanum yev darnum arajin hay tagavor@: Aha, te inchpes e ardzaganqel patmahayr Movses Khorenatsin ays iradardzutyan@: <> - batsakanchum e patmahayr@:"

 

just keep in mind that my sources are not that sophisticated.

[Twilight Bark]

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?

Well, I didn't say someone before me has deconstructed it that way.

I don't know if anyone published such an interpretation or not, but it seems to me the most plausible explanation of the name. In a similar fashion, the kings' names in Armenian "mythological history" often make better sense as the names of the significant "tribes" that joined the Armenian nation in its evolution. Anyway, in the case of "Haik" and "Az", the name of the apparently dominant group, "Hay", must have become the proper name of the nation while the name of the "junior partner" tribe must have come to mean "nation".

The inspiration for this line of thinking came from a little, unassuming book by Kegham Kerovpian, titled "Hayots Avantagan Badmutyun", published in Istanbul, 1968. At the end of the book the author explains the "Haikazian" kings' names in terms of tribal names, with no pretense of academic precedence (in fact he says there is nothing "new" in the book).

[bellthecat]

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

It's a silly, amateurish book, like something that would have been written 150 years ago by a third rate history student - OK, not a very academic critique I agree, but it does accurately sum up the book! And as soon as you read it you will agree. I got mine new from Barnes & Nobel for 8 dollars I think, about 6 or 7 years ago.

[nairi]

Well, I didn't say someone before me has deconstructed it that way.

I don't know if anyone published such an interpretation or not, but it seems to me the most plausible explanation of the name. In a similar fashion, the kings' names in Armenian "mythological history" often make better sense as the names of the significant "tribes" that joined the Armenian nation in its evolution. Anyway, in the case of "Haik" and "Az", the name of the apparently dominant group, "Hay", must have become the proper name of the nation while the name of the "junior partner" tribe must have come to mean "nation".

The inspiration for this line of thinking came from a little, unassuming book by Kegham Kerovpian, titled "Hayots Avantagan Badmutyun", published in Istanbul, 1968. At the end of the book the author explains the "Haikazian" kings' names in terms of tribal names, with no pretense of academic precedence (in fact he says there is nothing "new" in the book).

Thanks.

[Teutonic Knight]

This thread died too quickly so I will attempt to revive it.

I'm going to answer each initial response with a negative approach, much the same way someone from Turkey or Israel would. I hope that Twilight Bark will take the time and respond though.

The thing is when someone denies the Armenian Holocaust, the first and only Holocaust directed against a distinct group of people do you sit back and do nothing, no? So why should you not care when one denies your history much the same way?

The responses are based on my prediction of what Turkish propagandists would use based on previous experience.

~~~

 

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

 

How can you judge the Hurrians as being 'migrants' and the Urarteans as being 'local' when we know that the Urarteans spoke a Hurrian language? You are so confused!!!!

 

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

 

You don't know what you're talking about. Urartu was southern Armenia. 'Armenia' was northern Armenia. The Persians referred to this entire land as Armina but the Babylonian version of the same Persian texts call the land Urashtu, not because Armenians and Urarteans were the same but to give the entire land the name of one of these peoples. The Greeks continued to speak of 'Armenians' and 'Alarodians' (Urartians) as distinct peoples until perhaps the 1st century BC, when perhaps Tigranes created his far-flung empire.

 

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.

 

How come you don't mention the ethnogenesis of such peoples as the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Croats? They are all Slavs, yet they possess the names of people originally not speaking Slavic? The same can be said of the original Hays. The evidence (though scanty as it is) suggest that they didn't even speak an IE language. And 'reconstructing' 'Haykaz' from 'Hayasa-Azzi', although attractive, is also desceptive. The reality was that the Hittites referred to their northeastern neighbor as either 'Azzi' or as 'Hayasa', not as the hyphenated name we use. In modern books we refer to it much more often as 'Azzi-Hayasa' rather then 'Hayasa-Azzi' to show readers that the country was named both ways by the Hittites.

 

The later additions (be it Thracians or the Urartu) to the mix are simply different stages in the ever-continuing evolution of a nation.

 

And it was probably this 'Thraco-Phrygian' group which brought 'Armenian' to the east. Having demonstrated that the language shows contact with western languages, what nails the origins of the core Armenian group is the fact that of all living languages, the two languages which have the most affinities with it are Greek and Iranian. How can the core nature of Armenian have any relation with Greek? It had to have been in an area where Armeno-Iranian split from Greek. Since the origin of the 'Thraco-Phrygians' was undoubtedly the Balkans, this is probably where the split occurred.

 

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?

 

Of course it wouldn't be meaningless. But I've already discovered the pitfalls of your theory. Urarteans and Armenians were in fact different. You cannot prove that the Hayasas were IE. Hurrian was earlier than IE in the region. The only candidate left for a proto-Armenian people are the 'Thraco-Phrygians'. The best that can be drawn from the available evidence was that the Armenian core-group migrated from the west into eastern Anatolia by about 1165 BC. They adopted the name of the Hayasas, probably migrated to Shupria where they perhaps gained the name Armenians, and eventually reached northern Armenia sometime after 714 BC after the Cimmerian invasion, since the Urartean records don't mention an Armenian state there before that date. In fact the one power in northern Armenia which the Urarteans had to contend with until 714 BC was the Kingdom of Daeiukhi, which were the Taokhoi of later Greek sources, which distinguish them from the Armenians.

 

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

 

True, but your concept of ethnogenesis simply has no evidence to back it up. It is most unfair to reduce the ancient Greek historians and geographers as 'story-tellers'. Much can be said about Herodotus, but much of his narrative has been corroborated by newer scientifically gleened evidence.

 

 

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.

 

Ignorance is not going to help you here. What I have presented to you wasn't just language evidence but also geographic and cultural observations of the Greeks, who did in fact distinguish 'Armenians' from 'Urartians' (Alarodioi in Greek).

 

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.

 

Wrong again. There is a bulk of Urartean inscriptions which deal with the campaigns of Urartean kings, from which we are able to get a good idea as to the names of regions in the north, where the Armenians gained their ultimate ethnogenesis, but none of the Urartean inscriptions speak of an 'Armenia' or 'Hay' nation in this region. Again the major power in this area was Daeiukhi. In the core Urartean region (southeast of Lake Van) the only languages in evidence were Urartean and to a lesser degree, Assyrian, reflecting Assyrian inroads into Urartu from time to time.

 

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).

 

The problem is that there is simply no evidence to support your thesis. It's just wishful thinking, plain and simple.

 

The evidence that the Urartians were Armenians is simply one of common sense. I might have written this before in another post.

 

Common sense is completely irrelevent here. The evidence shows undeniable distinctions between Armenians and Urarteans.

 

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).

 

I never said that the Urarteans did vanish quickly. Urarteans continued to exist after the collapse of their kingdom as one of several peoples occupying 'Armenia'. They probably continued to exist as a distinct people until perhaps the 1st century BC when Tigran began his conquest of the east.

 

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).

 

The problem here is that 'Urartean' names and language, match. There is simply no evidence of another language there. The interesting thing here is that Hurrian shows the closest affinities with Caucasian languages. Therefore we can postulate a Hurro-Caucasian language family stretching from north of the Caucasus, south to the mountains north of Assyria. While the core area of the Urartean kingdom, was undoubtedly Urartean in speech, the north was a hodge podge of various lands and kingdoms. Armenian was clearly an intrusive language perhaps causing a rift between the Hurrian south and the Caucasian north.

 

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.

 

What are you talking about? The first biblical reference is mentioned Japheth, remember? The information from Khorenatsi that supports this Armenian theory, but where do you think he got his information? I did not mention something from the Bible because I believed in it. I merely mentioned it to show how the people of the Bible viewed Armenians (according to an interpretation). I did not attempt to prove it true or untrue. I just mentioned some possibilities, that's all.

 

it is a direct quote from "Armenology 101" as taught at Ankara U.

 

I had thought long and hard as how to respond to this accusation. This was clearly meant to question the credibility of my sources of information (and perhaps me in particular) as being Turkish in origin, or Turkish in sympathy. You don't know me, and you obviously don't know my sources. I have some of the most detailed and up-to-date sources of information my American bookstores and libraries can give me. If there is anyone here who was showing biased nationalistic tendencies, that would be you. Despite presenting the evidence to the contrary, you still continue to ignore evidence that run contrary to your unsubstantiated theories. You try to find IE speakers where there is no evidence of their eixstence. You insist that the Urartean rulers were only a non-Armenian elite over an Armenian population, but again, there is no evidence. You insist that the Urarteans and Armenians were the same, despite the fact that the Greeks were keenly aware that they were not. I just hope that Yerevan U. is much more enlightened than you!!!

[gamavor]

In the ancient world many civilizations have been just wiped out some even without a trace. What I'm saying is that all the cultures and all the Empires who had been in place without foreign dominance and who have flourished on the territory of Ancient Armenia have influenced be it culturally or otherwise the future Armenian kingdoms. For that matter you(we) may call them Armenian. To what extend this cultural and historical heritage contributed towards the genesis of the Armenian nation is a different and difficult question to answer. The beginning of the Armenian statehood and the formation of the Armenian nation started with Orontid (Ervanduni) dynasty, as far as I know, but discarding the heritage of all preexisting cultures would be a mistake.

You were wondering about the inconsistency of the names of the Armenian kings? You don't need to look that further to see how the names have evolved. Just look at the tread under Republic of Armenia "Weird names".

 

PS: Here is a synopsis of what we were talking about:

 

http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/home/index.html

[Twilight Bark]

Tueutonic Knight,

Please don't mix the quotes to which you are responding. You responded to at least three authors without indicating what is written by whom.

 

I hope that Twilight Bark will take the time and respond though.

Not much more I am afraid.

 

... the Armenian Holocaust, the first and only Holocaust directed against a distinct group

First and only? That is not true. That is also an irrelevant claim to slip into this discussion.

 

How come you don't mention the ethnogenesis of such peoples as the Bulgarians, Serbs, and Croats? They are all Slavs, yet they possess the names of people originally not speaking Slavic?

Oh, even the mother of them all, the Rus, is a Viking creation. But they acknowledge the respective periods (Turkic, Viking, or otherwise) as the time of their genesis, don't they?

 

The same can be said of the original Hays. The evidence (though scanty as it is) suggest that they didn't even speak an IE language.

While the precise language spoken by Haik and Azk is not terribly relevant to the discussion of defining the time of genesis, the fact that they were in an IE-speaking empire, with Hittite and Luwian the dominant ones, makes the IE assumption more credible than a non-IE speculation. I am not rejecting the possibility of a non-IE Hayasa-Azzi language. I just don't have any evidence that it belonged to a linguistic family different from the rest of the empire. The only important thing is what one calls oneself. Here we are conversing in English, which is the only only language some on this board can speak. Just as non-hebrew speaking Jews are still Jews, non-Armenian speaking Armenians are still Armenians if they still call themselves such. No need not to apply the same criterion to the dawn of history.

 

And 'reconstructing' 'Haykaz' from 'Hayasa-Azzi', although attractive, is also desceptive. The reality was that the Hittites referred to their northeastern neighbor as either 'Azzi' or as 'Hayasa', not as the hyphenated name we use. In modern books we refer to it much more often as 'Azzi-Hayasa' rather then 'Hayasa-Azzi' to show readers that the country was named both ways by the Hittites.

An irrelevant reply. The point is that the two terms are used to describe the client kingdom. And Hayasa is the more often-used and dominant one. All consistent with what I wrote, which is simply a plausible explanation and nothing more.

 

And it was probably this 'Thraco-Phrygian' group which brought 'Armenian' to the east. Having demonstrated that the language shows contact with western languages, what nails the origins of the core Armenian group is the fact that of all living languages, the two languages which have the most affinities with it are Greek and Iranian. How can the core nature of Armenian have any relation with Greek? It had to have been in an area where Armeno-Iranian split from Greek. Since the origin of the 'Thraco-Phrygians' was undoubtedly the Balkans, this is probably where the split occurred.

We have precious little information on what brought Haik and Azk "further east" and south. Nothing in it says it was the Thraco-Phrygians. If it was them, it was probably because of the destruction that they wrought on their path, not unlike what the Schythians did to the Urartu. There is little doubt that the assimilation of Urartu into the Hay people was the result of a defensive pact against the intruding savages. As for Greco-Iranian split from Armenian, it would be geographically more consistent to claim that they went their separate ways to East and West, where Armenian remained at the center.

 

Of course it wouldn't be meaningless.

Fine, then all nations are created today. And this statement will forever remain as meaningful as it is today. Remember that tomorrow morning all nations will be created anew, fresh out of the oven. Funny I don't hear anything on the news regarding such a momentous event. You would think it would make the headlines every morning.

 

But I've already discovered the pitfalls of your theory. Urarteans and Armenians were in fact different.

There were no "Armenians" at the time of Hayasa. There were "Hye"s. The same name we call ourselves today. And the Urartu dissolved into the already formed national consciousness. Their folk history and legends were also absorbed into the Hye nation, which is the inheritor of the Urartu civilization, despite its own earlier beginnings. The Urartu enriched the Hye nation, they did not replace it or initiate it.

 

You cannot prove that the Hayasas were IE.

But I don't need to. While it is more likely than not that they were IE-speakers, that point is not essential to defining the beginning the the Hye nation. And they were not Hayasas. They were Hays. Hayasa means "Land of Hays" in Luwian. The Irish effectively replaced their language with English. That does not make them English, and does not set their time of origin at the period during which Irish was largely phased out.

 

Hurrian was earlier than IE in the region.

Probably true for the easternmost Anatolia. For the rest, that is only a speculation. Whatever the case may be, it is not relevant to the discussion on when the Hye nation began.

 

The only candidate left for a proto-Armenian people are the 'Thraco-Phrygians'.

Only after you eliminate the group of people bearing the name of the nation in question. And your "only candidate" is not even a particularly good one among the remaining "candidates" after eliminating the obvious one screaming at us.

 

The best that can be drawn from the available evidence was that the Armenian core-group migrated from the west into eastern Anatolia by about 1165 BC.

... story, not history.

 

They adopted the name of the Hayasas

You got it backwards. Obviously the newcomers assimilated into the already established Hye nation.

 

, probably migrated to Shupria where they perhaps gained the name Armenians,

The name "Armen" is a child of Haik in Armenian mythology, clearly assigning it a subservient/secondary importance to Haik "the father". Again, remember that those names are not really person names but the names of the tribes. "Armenak, Haik's son" means "Armens assimilated into the Haik".

 

... your concept of ethnogenesis simply has no evidence to back it up.

Not only that is not true, but your story is pure speculation and is unsubstantiated by historical and archaeological record as well as what can be distilled out of Armenian mythology (which is explained neatly by independent hiostorical record).

 

It is most unfair to reduce the ancient Greek historians and geographers as 'story-tellers'.

But that is what they were. As all mythology, their stories contain grains of truth about themselves. But when they tell stories about other peoples' origins and such, as well as place names in Anatolia where hellenized Luwians etc. lived, they have zero (yes, that's right, zero) credibility.

 

Urarteans continued to exist after the collapse of their kingdom as one of several peoples occupying 'Armenia'. They probably continued to exist as a distinct people until perhaps the 1st century BC when Tigran began his conquest of the east.

In a certain sense, Urarteans still exist. You are conversing with them online right now.

As BellTheCat said, we don't know a whole lot about the ethnicity of ordinary folk in the Urartu kingdom. "Biai" or "Viai" sounds close to Hai. Who knows?

In any case their folk memory is integrated into that of the Hye nation. The question of whether there was an isolated Urartean-speaking mountain village left at the time of Tigran is interesting but irrelevant.

Edited September 29, 2003 by Twilight Bark

[Teutonic Knight]

Oh, even the mother of them all, the Rus, is a Viking creation. But they acknowledge the respective periods (Turkic, Viking, or otherwise) as the time of their genesis, don't they?

 

Time is not the factor here. The Russians regard the local Slavic tribes as their ethnogenesis, not the state created by their Viking overlords.

The point was to show that names can be an inconsistent source in defining an ethnogenesis. Bulgarians don't consider themselves Turks but rather are more apt to identify themselves as Slavs, yet their name comes from a Turkish people. Their state may have been created by Turkic overlords, but their population originated amongst local Slavic tribes.

 

While the precise language spoken by Haik and Azk is not terribly relevant to the discussion of defining the time of genesis, the fact that they were in an IE-speaking empire, with Hittite and Luwian the dominant ones, makes the IE assumption more credible than a non-IE speculation.

 

That is poor logic. Syria was in an IE-speaking empire, yet the language of Syria was Semitic and to a lesser degree Hurrian. The only credible assumption can be if after the conquest of Azzi-Hayasa, the Hittites and Luwians imposed their language on it. Even if we find that Azzi-Hayasa became Hittite-speaking, it only proves that an invasive IE language was present in the region, and one which has no direct relationship with Armenian.

 

I am not rejecting the possibility of a non-IE Hayasa-Azzi language. I just don't have any evidence that it belonged to a linguistic family different from the rest of the empire.

 

The 'rest of the Empire' also spoke Hurrian and west Semitic.

 

The only important thing is what one calls oneself. Here we are conversing in English, which is the only only language some in my country speak. Just as non-hebrew speaking Jews are still Jews, non-Armenian speaking Armenians are still Armenians if they still call themselves such. No need not to apply the same criterion to the dawn of history.

 

But the 'dawn of history' is what we are talking about!!! Citing the example of 'non-Armenian speaking Armenians' is irrelevent. Citing the example of Urarteans not calling themselves Armenians, is!!!

 

An irrelevant reply. The point is that the two terms are used to describe the client kingdom. And Hayasa is the more often-used and dominant one. All consistent with what I wrote, which is simply a plausible explanation and nothing more.

 

 

But in order for you to 'correspond' Haykaz to Hayasa-Azzi, you needed both terms, which were used to the almost exclusion of either term. It was either Hayasa or Azzi. Are you now saying that all you need is Hayasa to correspond to Haykaz? If this is so, then I don't see the consistency.

 

We have precious little information on what brought Haik and Azk "further east" and south. Nothing in it says it was the Thraco-Phrygians. If it was them, it was probably because of the destruction that they wrought on their path, not unlike what the Schythians did to the Urartu. There is little doubt that the assimilation of Urartu into the Hay people was the result of a defensive pact against the intruding savages. As for Greco-Iranian split from Armenian, it would be geographically more consistent to claim that they went their separate ways to East and West, where Armenian remained at the center.

 

 

There was no assimilation of the Urarteans into the Hay people until the 1st century BC.

 

These are the indicators as to a 'Thraco-Phrygian' origin of Armenian.

 

1. Borrowings from Luwian. The area of Luwian speech was western Anatolia, west and southwest of the Hittites. Armenians must have been present in western Anatolia in order to have picked up some Luwian. The region of Phrygia was a region of Luwian speech prior to the appearance of the Phrygians.

 

2. Its relationship with Greek. There is nothing to show migration of Greeks from areas adjacent to Armenia, going west to Greece. The archaeology shows the opposite: Culture was moving east toward Armenia. Luwian and Hittite were between Greek and Armenian, so therefore your theory would really exclude an association, anyway. The only logical, archaeological, and narrative consistency is to postulate an association of proto-Greek, Armenian, and Iranian-speaking populations in the northeast Balkans, where archaeology verifies drift of culture from the Balkans into western Anatolia. Proto-Greek moves southwest toward Greece, Proto-Indo-Iranian moves east on the Pontic Caspian steppe. Proto-Armenian, in between remains until the 'Thraco-Phrygian' migrations, c. 1200 BC.

 

Fine, then all nations are created today. And this statement will forever remain as meaningful as it is today. Remember that tomorrow morning all nations will be created anew, fresh out of the oven. Funny I don't hear anything on the news regarding such a momentous event. You would think it would make the headlines every morning.

 

 

I think you didn't get my 'meaning', and you are simply being theatrical in your response. You are confusing 'nation' with 'nation-state', and there's nothing in my 'meaning' suggesting such spontaneous recreation of nations every 'morning'. There was already an Armenianized 'Hay' nation much longer in time before the Urarteans were assimilated by the mid-1st century BC. The 'Hay' don't need the Urarteans in order to be called Armenians. The Armenians were already there.

 

There were no "Armenians" at the time of Hayasa. There were "Hye"s. The same Armenians call themselves today.

 

This is in agreement with my information. Hayasa was not Armenian, but when they did arrive, they took over the name "Hye". Good.

 

And the Urartu dissolved into the already formed national consciousness. Their folk history and legends were also absorbed into the Hye nation, which is the inheritor of the Urartu civilization, despite its own earlier beginnings. The Urartu enriched the Hye nation, they did not replace it or initiate it.

 

Yes, by the mid-1st century BC. So, until that time, we can speak of 'Hyes' (Armenians) and Urarteans as separate peoples, until that assimilation.

 

But I don't need to. While it is more likely than not that they were IE-speakers, that point is not essential to defining the beginning the Hye nation. And they were not Hayasas. They were Hays. Hayasa means "Land of Hays" in Luwian. The Irish effectively replaced their language with English. That does not make them English, and does not set their time of origin at the period during which Gaelic was largely phased out. 

 

You certainly made it a point to make Hayasa, IE speaking. In either case, the evidence does not support a very early 'Armenian' nation. Armenianization came later.

 

Probably true for the easternmost Anatolia. For the rest, that is only a speculation. Whatever the case may be, it is not relevant to the discussion on when the Hye nation began. 

 

And yet you were insisting on the IE nature of Hayasa, so therefore until now, it was relevant.

 

Only after you eliminate the group of people bearing the name of the nation in question. And your "only candidate" is not even a particularly good one among the remaining "candidates" after eliminating the obvious one screaming at us.

 

I have already dealt with how they are the “only candidate”. Ignore it if you must, but the evidence does point to western origin where they were at one time had a common origin with the Greeks.

 

... story, not history. 

 

but with corroborating evidence, which is totally lacking for your theory, except a ‘name’. Yours is more a ‘myth’ compared to my ‘story’.

 

You got it backwards. Obviously the newcomers assimilated into the already established Hye nation. 

 

I do not deny a certain ‘assimilation’, but one of the major things the Hays adopted was proto-Armenian or Armenian.

 

The name "Armen" is a child of Haik in Armenian mythology, clearly assigning it a subservient/secondary importance to Haik "the father". Again, remember that those names are not really persons names but the names of the tribes. "Armenak, Haik's son" means "Armens assimilated into the Haik".

 

You read far too much into the ‘myth’. I could easily read this as “the Haik became the Armens”. In either case, the ‘myth’ is far too vague as to how we should interpret it. Sorry, but my ‘story’ still has weight.

 

Not only that is not true, but your story is pure speculation and is unsubstantiated by historical and archaeological record as well as what can be distilled out of Armenian mythology (which is explained neatly by independent historical record). 

 

It’s a wonder that I even dignify your statement with a response. I’ve already mentioned that the archaeological evidence shows migration from west to east, not the other way around. Ancient history shows the majority of migrations from west to east, not the other way around.

 

But that is what they were. As all mythology, their stories contain grains of truth about themselves. But when they tell stories about other peoples' origins and such, as well as place names in Anatolia where hellenized Luwians etc. lived, they have zero (yes, that's right, zero) credibility. 

 

For starters, we aren’t talking about Greek mythology. True, their mythology involving non-Greek peoples shouldn’t be given credibility, but when, for instance Herodotus refers to a western origin of the Armenians, he wasn’t referring back to a Greek myth. Even then, his statement shouldn’t be taken by itself, but only to add flesh to facts already discerned in the archaeological, historical, and linguistic literature in which there is in fact the corroborative evidence which has been stated (but, alas, ignored).

 

In a certain sense, Urarteans still exist. You are conversing with them online right now.

As BellTheCat said, we don't know a whole lot about the ethnicity of ordinary folk in the Urartu kingdom. "Biai" or "Viai" sounds close to Hai. Who knows?

In any case their folk memory is integrated into that of the Hye nation. The question of whether there was an isolated Urartean-speaking mountain village left at the time of Tigran is interesting but irrelevant.

 

Biaina or Biainili is the origin of the name of Lake “Van”. It is a single word which designated Urartu in native Urartian sources. No credible scholarship associates it with “Hai”.

We are not talking about “an isolated village”. We are talking about the whole of southern Armenia.

I’ve presented evidence unacceptable to you. Compared to my “story” all you’ve presented is a myth of dubious value with an interpretation of dubious value all revolving around a name. No facts.

Again you are being theatrical in your response. You just created a straw-man argument, which has nothing to do with my ideas. Exaggerating my theories is not going to help you.

Edited October 3, 2003 by Teutonic Knight

[Twilight Bark]

Teutonic Knight,

I really do not have the time to entertain this interesting discussion. And I don't anticipate having more time in the near future. I never claimed to possess the ultimate truth. I simply gave my interpretation of what's known. I would let the reader make her/his own synthesis of those competing ideas and considerations rather than us getting stuck in an endless loop in any case. However, I would urge you or anyone else interested in making pronouncements about Armenian origins to actually take a good look at real, live Armenians and do a reality-check before going off in the wrong direction for too long. Sometimes you don't need to bury yourself under a ton of dusty books to see the obvious. Armenians are mostly (and as far as I am concerned, proudly) Near Eastern , with a significant dose of "European" ancestry. And whether being such a mix is particularly unique in the Asia Minor/Caucasus area can be debated. I think it is the norm.

 

To me, the most interesting aspect is not the precise truth about origins, but the way in which one's background, prejudices, aspirations, and place of birth shapes the preferred "story". The choice of the story (or not being interested in the story at all) reveals something about the person or the nation.

 

Twilight Bark

[Teutonic Knight]

That's too bad.

Turks and Jews have the time...but you were on the right path.

 

I just disagree with "Near Eastern", what's "Near Eastern" ?. There was never such a group nor there is one now.

I say virtually all Armenians are European with a tiny insignificant minority that are mixed with Caucasian (mountains) peoples and Semites/Turkics.

Edited October 3, 2003 by Teutonic Knight

[Twilight Bark]

That's too bad.

Turks and Jews have the time...but you were on the right path.

 

I just disagree with "Near Eastern", what's "Near Eastern" ?. There was never such a group nor there is one now.

I say virtually all Armenians are European with a tiny insignificant minority that are mixed with Caucasian (mountains) peoples and Semites/Turkics.

A few very quick comments:

 

* My interest is in defining when the Armenian enterprise started, and not so much the anthropological origins of today's Armenians, which is largely a Near Eastern mix. I am referring to the mix, not a particular anthropological type. As I said before, just taking a look at Armenians suffices to conclude that they are ancestrally more Near Eastern than "European", whatever the latter means.

 

* Mainstream Europeans, Americans, Turks, or Jews couldn't care less about Armenian origins.

 

* The "specialist" Turks whose motivation is to prove that Armenians are just another "intruder/invader" group that is fundamentally no different from them, would gleefully approve your speculations. And for the few dozen Jews that care about the subject, your views are just fine and dandy as it conforms to the official Turkish line, and makes Armenians appear much less ancient than they are. Your views are essentially aligned with their wishes, to the extent that they care, which is little.

[Teutonic Knight]

A few very quick comments:

 

* My interest is in defining when the Armenian enterprise started, and not so much the anthropological origins of today's Armenians, which is largely a Near Eastern mix.  I am referring to the mix, not a particular anthropological type.  As I said before, just taking a look at Armenians suffices to conclude that they are ancestrally more Near Eastern than "European", whatever the latter means.

 

* Mainstream Europeans, Americans, Turks, or Jews couldn't care less about Armenian origins.

 

* The "specialist" Turks whose motivation is to prove that Armenians are just another "intruder/invader" group that is fundamentally no different from them, would gleefully approve your speculations.  And for the few dozen Jews that care about the subject, your views are just fine and dandy as it conforms to the official Turkish line, and makes Armenians appear much less ancient than they are.  Your views are essentially aligned with their wishes, to the extent that they care, which is little.

You're confused!

Read the thread again I agree with you.

I want to see if you guys are able to argue against Jewish/Turkish revisionism.

The "arguments" and the "logic", or lack thereof I used here are identical to that coming from Jews such as Diakonov, James Russel, Heeb U...Turkish MFA, UofAnkara etc. for the rest you are a Mountain Turk,Mongol-Semite mongrel or some fictional character called Armenoid. That's why these discussions are important and more Armenians need to dwell into this topic.

 

And regarding those so called "Near Estearn Armenians", I guess the Armenians you know are not the ones I know

[Armat]

TK

Logic dictates that any statements that one strongly and passionately makes should and must reveal its source and hopefully that source is preferably from unbiased position. Having said that, could you reveal your source for statements like?

 

“There was no assimilation of the Urarteans into the Hay people until the 1st century BC.”

 

“I say virtually all Armenians are European with a tiny insignificant minority that are mixed with Caucasian (mountains) peoples and Semites/Turkics”

[bellthecat]

I just disagree with "Near Eastern", what's "Near Eastern" ?. There was never such a group nor there is one now.

I say virtually all Armenians are European with a tiny insignificant minority that are mixed with Caucasian (mountains) peoples and Semites/Turkics.

"Near Eastern" is the culture of, or peoples of, the lands that currently comprise states such as Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Armenia. The term is generally now use to describe the culture of this region before the current borders of those aforementioned states were set. To say that Armenia is historically not a Near Eastern country is just silly.

[Armen]

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.

[Twilight Bark]

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

[Teutonic Knight]

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

That's a good point.

I have to remind people constantly that:

a) Armenians are not "Caucasian/Kavkaz" people.

Caucasian armenia is less tahn 10% of actual Armenia.

 

We need to work on the timeline and go even further back than 1350 BC.

 

Since Greek history starts from Mycaeneans and Minoans with proto-Greeks going even further back we can starts Armenian history with Metsamor!

 

9,000 B.C., the world’s first fortified cities, ramparts and round-shaped military towers are erected in Metsamor in ancient Armenia.

 

In 6,000 B.C., Armenia as a nation was first settled by the Thracian-Phrygian tribes that crossed in Anatolia from the Balkans.

 

Early 5,000 B.C., the first technologically urbanized Armenian city is born, thanks to the advanced knowledge and mastery of metallurgy, mining of precious stones, gems, gold, silver and magnesium, and metal work (bronze and copper).

 

Beginning of 5,000 B.C., ancient Armenian cities are equipped with advanced irrigation systems and houses are supplied with running water through stone pipes in Dari Blur, Aratashen Blur, Ada Blur and Teghut.

 

5,000 B.C., Armenians in the city of Shengavit create the world’s first round shaped dwellings made out of mud brick, river stones and pottery. Many centuries later, the Armenians will teach the Minoans (mistakenly considered as to be the world’s first and best pottery makers and designers!) the secret of their craft. In fact, the Armenians were the ancient world’s first and best pottery makers and designers

 

In 4,200 B.C., in Metsamor, Armenians create the world’s first navigation system with accurate distances, latitude and longitude measurements, graphs and symbols, as well as topography and mapping systems and tools to map the sky and the stars. In Sissian, the world’s first astrological observatory is built from carved stones, thousands of years ahead of the Babylonians, Egyptians and other great ancient civilizations.

 

In 4,000 B.C., Armenia began mining metals.

 

Around 3,000 B.C., the Hayasa-Azzi tribes first inhabit Urartu.

 

3,000 B.C., in the Armenian cities of Voski Blur, MokhraBlur, Kosh, Lejapi Blur and Jerahovit, Armenians become the world’s first astronomers to find that the earth was round, to build n observatory, to create an astrological calendar dividing the year into 12 partitions of time and to devise the compass.

 

The Patriarchs and their Epochs

 

2,350 – 1,700 B. C.

 

Hayg. Armenag. Aramais. Amassia. Gegham. Harma. Aram.

 

1,770 – 1,440 B. C.

 

Ara Keghetzig. Ara Kardos. Anoushavan. Paret. Arbag. Zaven. Varnas. Sour. Havanagk.

 

1,400 – 1,200 B. C.

 

Vashtak. Haikak. Ampak. Arnak. Shavarsh. Norir. Vestam. Kar. Gorak. Hrant. Endzak. Geghak.

 

1,200 - 800 B. C.

 

Horo. Zarmeir. Perch. Arboon. Hoy. Houssak. Kipak. Skaiordi.

 

 

 

 

THE EARLY ARMENIAN SETTLEMENTS

1,250 B. C.

 

Arrival of the Armeno-Phrygians in Thrace. Crossing of the Bosphorus by the Armeno-Phrygians in Phrygia

 

1,000 B .C.

 

Settlement of the Armeno-Phrygians in Phrygia

 

Around 1,000 B.C., the Phyrgians and the Thracians immigrate to Urartu. The Urarturians conquer and overrun the majority of the lands of the mighty empire of Assyria.

 

 

 

Around 934-935 B.C., Assyria regains and captures the lands lost to the Urarturians.

 

 

 

In 860 B.C., Aramu becomes the first king of Urartu.

 

 

 

800 B. C.

 

The Armenians separate from the Phrygians.

 

 

 

RULERS AND DYNASTIES: CHRONOLOGY

KINGDOM OF URARTU (The First Armenian Kingdom)

 

860-843: Arameh

835-820: Sarduris I

820-800: Ispunis

800-780: Menuas I

 

In 782 B. C., at Erebuni, King Argishti the first erects the first Armenian royal capital.

 

 

780-755: Arkisdis I

755-730: Sarduris II

 

In 760 B .C., king Sarduri the second annexes northern Syria.

 

 

 

The year 735 B. C. marks the beginning of the Assyrian incursions in the kingdom of Urartu.

 

 

730-714: Russas I

714-680: Arkisdis II

 

The year 707 B.C. marks the beginning of the multiple attacks of Cimmerians on Urartu.

 

 

680-675 : Russas II

675-670 : Yeremenas

670-645 : Russas III

645-620 : Sarduris III

620-600 : Irgias

 

In 590 B.C., the Uraturian capital Rusahinili is decimated and completed destroyed by Medes. In that year, Urartu is sacked, burned and totally ruined. The Uraturian kingdom begins to fall and declines and never to rise again.

 

 

 

In 585 B.C., Urartu is totally annihilated by the Scythians.

 

600-580: Menuas II

 

ORONTID DYNASTY

Ervanduni

 

401-344: Ervand I

344-331: Ervand II

331-317: Mithranes

317-260: Ervand III

260-228: Samus

228-212: Xerxes

212-200: Ervand IV

 

ARTAXIAD DYNASTY

Artashesian

 

190-159 B .C. : Artaxias or Asrtashes I

159-149 B. C. : Artavazd I

149-123 B. C. : Tigran I

94-54 B .C. : Tigran II, the Great

55-34 B. C. : Artavazd II

34-31 B. C. : Alexander

30-20 B. C. : Artashes II

20 B.C. - 8 A. D. : Tigran III

8-5 B. C. : Tigran IV

8-5 B. C. : Erato

5-2 B. C. : Artavazd III

2-1 B. C. : Tigran IV . 2-1 B.C. : Erato

 

REIGN OF FOREIGN RULERS AND KINGS

ANNI DOMINI

 

2-4 A. D. : Ariobarzan

4-6 : Artavazd IV

6-14 : Tigran V

14-15 : Erato

16-17 : Vonon

18-34 : Artashes III

34-35 : Arshak I

35-37 : Mithridates

37-47 : Transitional Period

47-51 : Mithridates

51-53 : Hradamizd

 

 

 

ARSACID DYNASTY

Arshakuni

 

52-59 : Trdat I

60-61 : Tigran VI

66-75 : Trdat I

75-100 : Sanadroog

100-113 : Asxadar

113-114 : Parthamasiris

116-117 : Parthamaspates

117-140 : Vagharsh I

140-162 : Sohemus

162-163 : Pacorus

164-185 : Sohemus

185-190 : Vagharsh II

190-216 : Khosrov I

216-238 : Khosrov II

 

KINGS OF CHRISTIAN ARMENIA

 

331-339 : Khosrov III

340-350 : Tiran

350-367 : Arshak II

367-374 : Pap

374-378 : Varazdat

378-389 : Arshak III

378-386 : Vagharshak

 

387 A. D. - Repartition of Armenia between the Persian empire and the Roman empire

 

385-387 : Khosrov IV

387-414 : Vramshapuh

 

406 A. D. - Invention of the Armenian alphabet

 

415 : Khosrov IV

416-428 : Shahpur

 

423-428 : Artashes

428 A. D. The end of the Arsacid Dynasty.

 

The Persian Empire Rules Armenia

From 403 To 634

Thirty five Governors General Persians and Armenians (Marzpans, similar to the Turkish Mohafezs) rule Armenia.

 

387-451 : Vartan Mamigonian

June 2, 451 A. D. : The Decisive Battle of Avarair

 

454 : Ghevontiank Martyrized

464 : Return of Vahan, Vasak & Ardashes

480-510 : Vahan Mamigonian

 

510-564 : Vart Mamigonian

 

564-642:Armenia divided between Persian Empire and Eastern Roman Empire

 

604: Famous Battles of Kayl Vahan

 

 

 

652: Fall of the Persian Empire

 

 

 

The Arabs Rule Armenia

 

From 640 A. D. To 851 A. D.

 

 

 

INDEPENDENT RULE OF ARMENIA BY ARMENIANS

BAGRATID DYNASTY

 

885-890: Ashot I

890-914: Sembat I

914-929: Ashot II

921: Ashot

929-953: Abas

953-977: Ashot III

977-989: Sembat II

989-1020: Gagik I

1,020-1,042: Sembat III

1,020-1,042: Ashot IV

1,042-1,045: Gagik

 

BYZANTINE RULES ARMENIA

From ,1045 To 1,064

 

 

 

 

 

THE THREE KINGDOMS OF ARMENIA

 

 

 

KINGDOM OF VASPURAKAN

Ardzruni

 

914-937: Katchik-Gagik

937-953: Derenik-Ashot

953-972: Abousahl-Hamazasp

972-983: Ashot-Sahak

983-1,003: Gourgen-Khatchik

1,003: Seneqerim-Hovannes

1,027-1,037: David

1037-1,080: Atom

1037-1,080: Abousahl

 

 

 

KINGDOM OF KARS

 

962-984: Mushegh

984-989: Abas

1,029-1,064: Gagik

 

 

 

KINGDOM OF ARMENIAN ALBENIA

 

 

1,046-1,082: Koriké

 

 

 

THE GREAT KINGDOM OF CILICIA-1080

Complete Armenian Autonomy

 

THE ROUPENIN DYNASTY

 

1,080-1,095: Rupen I

1,095-1,099: Constantine I

 

1,095-1,099: The Crusaders enter Armenia

 

 

1,099-1,129: Theros I

1,129-1,137: Levon I

 

The Byzantines Rule Armenia for a Short Time from 1,137 to 1,145

 

 

1,145-1,169: Thoros II

1,170-1,175: Mleh

1175-1187: Rupen II

1187-1196: Levon II

 

1,196/1,199: THE BEGINNING OF THE ROYAL RULE: ARMENIA IS RULED BY RECOGNIZED AND UNIFIED KINGS AND QUEENS

 

 

 

1,196-,1219: Levon I, the First Official King crowned in 1,199

1,219-1,252: Queen Zabel

1,222-1,225: Philip

 

 

 

THE HETOUMIAN DYNASTY

 

1,226-1,270: Hetoum I

1,270-1,289: Levon II

1,289-1,297: Hetoum II

1,293-1,295: Thoros

1,296-1,298: Sembat

1,298-1,299: Constantin I

1,301-1,307: Leon III

1,308-1,320:Oshin

1,320-1,342: Levon V

 

 

 

THE LUSIGNAN DYNASTY

 

1,342-1344 : Guy de Lusignan or Constantin II

1,344-1,363 : Constantin III

1,363-1,365 : Leon IV

1,365-1,373 : Constantin IV

1,374-1,375 : Leon VI

 

THE END OF THE GREAT CILICIAN KINGDOM

 

 

 

ARMENIA DARK CENTURIES OF POVERTY AND ART AND CULTURE DECADENCE INFLICTED BY FOREIGN DOMINATIONS

[Armen]

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

Dear Twilight Bark,

 

Thanks for the welcome. 1350 BC eh? Impressive I'm all for it.

 

On a more serious note. I do not believe any study about Urartu. It's all false and made up. We don't have any significant information about them, apart from the Hurrian letters they used in their inscribtions.

 

I think that "The state of Urartu" theory was intentionally developed to conceal, mutate, undermine and make controverisal the existence of the Ararat kingdom.

 

Actually, do you know what are the main sources on Urartu?

 

I not prepared for discussion on Hayassa, so for the time being I agree.

 

Thanks,

A.

[hagopn]

.... 520 b.c, at Behisitun is NOT the first concrete inscription of the Armenia(n) name!

 

We can skip to the 8th century b.c. with the Assyrian library unearthed at Nineveh, that which was at least maintained if not originally commissioned by Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria!

 

We can skip further back than that all the way to the 23rd century with Naram-Suwen's stellate south of Amida/Diyarbekir.

 

As someone mentioned, Metzamor has clearly Armenian features to it. It would be like refusing to acknowledge the entire symbology that Armenians have continually adopted, that they still continue to traditionally utilize in their artisanr and architectural motifs.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[Twilight Bark]

...520 b.c, at Behisitun is NOT the first concrete inscription of the Armenia(n) name!

 

We can skip to the 8th century b.c. with the Assyrian library unearthed at Nineveh, that which was at least maintained if not originally commissioned by Tiglath-Pileser II of Assyria! 

 

We can skip further back than that all the way to the 23rd century with Naram-Suwen's stellate south of Amida/Diyarbekir. 

 

As someone mentioned, Metzamor has clearly Armenian features to it.  It would be like refusing to acknowledge the entire symbology that Armenians have continually adopted, that they still continue to traditionally utilize in their artisanr and architectural motifs. 

Dear Hagop,

Welcome again to Hye Forum. You will find that in this forum it is relatively easy to have open-minded discussions based on reason and some knowledge. Please ...invite your fellow armenians to discuss topics that your are passionate about. I hope you stay this time and give yourself the chance to air your thoughts.

TB

 

P.S. Have you had Jensen's book translated from German yet? If so, it would be wonderful if you could share with us parts of it.

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun

[hagopn]

First of all, ignoring evidence is a breach of proper conduct, but that is what revisionists do best. Armenians are among the worst victms of this phenomenon. I would suggest you address that as well. Dishonesty should not be equated with "open-mindedness."

 

As with everything else, translations are not easy to accomplish. A copy of it is in possession of a friend who studies the Hittite Dictionary publsihed by the Unviersity of Chicago. The translation was partly done in 1999, but the project was stopped short due to a tragic event.

 

There are 3 interesting points to make about this University of Chicago:

 

1. It is an institution that is constantly accused of collaboration with the Illuminati by numerous authors on the Internet (and even the most outlandish sounding theory has its basis in some empirical analysis). It is in fact interesting that the University of Chigago does house revisionists: Ronald Grigor Suny, for example, is a very accomplished revisionist, and his latest "instant" 44 page rebuttal to Armen Aivazian, which is a concoction of imperialistic biases presented as "objectivity," is an amazing piece of work designed to discredit the entire notion of Armenian nationalism prior to the "soviet satrapization."

 

2. The University of Chicago apparently refuses to publish all logograms, word roots, and complex words (many probably proper names) in Hittite that start with the letter A (in phonetic transliteration). Is the name "Armen" mentioned too often, perhaps?

 

3. the University of Chicago has concentrated all study of Hittites onto its own campus or "closely guarded" (as described by an academic friend) affiliates. There are only two part time academics, both married women with children in Armenia, who are "professionally involved" in HIttite research. In essence, we depend on the "objective and apolitical" (sic) staff at the University of Chicago to present us with the evidence on the Hittites.

Edited November 25, 2003 by hagopn

[Twilight Bark]

First of all, ignoring evidence is a breach of proper conduct, but that is what revisionists do best. Armenians are among the worst victms of this phenomenon. I would suggest you address that as well. Dishonesty should not be equated with "open-mindedness."

I don't know if you are referring to me here or not. In any case, if there is important evidence lacking in this discussion (which I don't doubt), presenting what you think are the missing facts would be helpful for those interested. I don't know about others, but you can count me among the "friendly audience".

[Twilight Bark]

There are 3 interesting points to make about this University of Chicago:

 

1. It is an institution that is constantly accused of collaboration with the Illuminati by numerous authors on the Internet. It is in fact interesting that the University of Chigago does house revisionists: Ronald Grigor Suny, for example, is a very accomplished revisionist, and his latest "instant" 44 page rebuttal to Armen Aivazian, which is a concoction of imperialistic biases presented as "objectivity," is an amazing piece of work designed to discredit the entire notion of Armenian nationalism prior to the "soviet satrapization."

 

2. The University of Chicago apparently refuses to publish all logograms, word roots, and complex words (many probably proper names) in Hittite that start with the latter A (in phonetic transliteration). Is the name "Armen" mentioned too often, perhaps?

 

3. the University of Chicago is concentrated all study of Hittites onto its own campus or "closely guarded" (as described by an academic friend) affiliates. There are only two part time academics, both married women with children in Armenia, who are "professionally involved" in HIttite research. In essence, we depend on the "objective and apolitical" (sic) staff at the University of Chicago to present us with the evidence on the Hittites.

I have to confess that I don't know much about the "politics" involved. I would not be surprised. I have sasid before that Armenians themselves often butcher their own history because of cultural complexes.

 

As for University of Chicago, I wouldn't be much surprised about their bias. In an earlier life, I spotted a sentence on their web site referring to Urartu as an "ancient Turkish kingdom", which got corrected pretty quickly when a bunch of e-mails reminded them that at least some people were watching them. Considering how much historical resources Turkey possesses, and given the careerism of academics, it is not a huge surprise to see them try to please their precious "source" at the expense of those insignificant pesky Armenians.

[hagopn]

I beg to differ only on one point for now:

 

Armenians are anything but "insignificant," and that մակդիր of "insignificant nation" is also the wet dream of wishful imperialists. At the turn of the century Armenians were able to amass an estimated 300,000 on both the ottoman and the russian frontiers. We are as of yet not "insignificant," or at least, not yet. However, at this pace of ideological and, thus, psychological suicide headed by our own "career Armenologists" at the employ of the "global order," we are well on our way to assimilate out of existence. We might even "hypothesize" ourselves out of existence.

 

Consider that the "elite" who shape the national psyche are now adopting (or have been adopting) a fatalistic and defeatist mindset. Our "balanced" foreign "friends" are also privy to this, at least those who keep on feeding us the faulty "migration theory" based on the Azero-sponsored meanderings of Diakonov and Pyatrovski on the "Urartu" concoction(historian Artak Movsesian has mentioned a few public instances where Diakonov has openly supported the Azeris in matters of historical revisionism.)

Edited November 22, 2003 by hagopn

[hagopn]

I don't know if you are referring to me here or not.  In any case, if there is important evidence lacking in this discussion (which I don't doubt), presenting what you think are the missing facts would be helpful for those interested.  I don't know about others, but you can count me among the "friendly audience".

I have not read your posts, but there are a few who enthusiastically" keep on repeating ad nauseam, despite solid and informative objections to the contrary that "there were no Armenians before 520 b.c.!"

 

Edit: clean up done/ Sasun