MiB Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Dear forum members, I have a question about Urartu and about its people’s potential connections with Armenians. Namely, as we know Urartu was a strong and powerful country for a few centuries (well, probably one of the strongest countries in that period of time). So if we admit that they were not connected with Armenians, this will mean that in the 6th century BC that big nation (or collection of nations) within a few decades was replaced by Armenia and Armenians. Plus (and this is even more interesting!) after this replacement the Urartians NEVER appeared in the history, and they never tried to defeat those Armenians... Notice that very shortly in 612 BC Armenia was conquered by Media, which ruled it until 549 BC. So why didn’t the Urartians use this handy chance to get rid of the Armenians? How could such a big nation disappear so quickly?!?! This means that either: 1. the new Armenian migrants killed all the Urartians (very unlikely); 2. or that that transformation Urartu-Armenian was not connected very dramatic ethnic changes, that is, Urartu already partially was Armenia... Does this make sense? Thank you in advance for your answers, MiB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted April 22, 2004 Report Share Posted April 22, 2004 No it doesn't make sense. Armenians didn't kill any Urartians because Armenians are Urartians technically. Genetics show that Armenians have more in common with native Caucasus peoples as opposed to other Indo-European peoples this means that the IE invaders from the earliest times (Hittites) and the later ones (Phrygian Armens) were small in numbers. Ethnogenesis: Pre-history: 90,000 BC to Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Metsamor etc. Detailed but very Armenocentric summary here: http://www.tacentral.com/history.asp Period 1: Late Bronze Age (a) Hayassa-Azzi (with the addition of Hittites) ( Rise of Urartians © Arrival of Armen tribes from Thrace Period 2: Separation of Proto-Armenian from Proto-Greek and the appearance of Proto-Armenian in the northern areas of Anatolia, associated with Luwians and Hittites, possibly in the period from 2200-1900 BCE. Period 3: The Urartu State Thenative Hurrian speaking people take the role of Western Peasants to the Hurro-Urartian Upper Class while Armen peoples seem to be associated with the Nairi. Period 4: The Scytho-Median overlordship The destruction of Urartu gives the Armen tribes the chance to expand and assume the mantle in the power vacuum of the Urartian state. This is probably the period in which Hayk becomes acknowledged as the "ancestor" of Hayassa. Period 5: Persian Period when the name Armeniya becomes acknowledged as one of the Satrapies of the Persian Empire. This sees the emergence of Armenian eventually as a literate language with an adapted and modified Aramaean/Greek script, for the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiB Posted April 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Dear Teutonic Knight, Thank you for your answer. Yes, my question was rather naive... So do I understand correctly from your answer that: 1. Urartu is NOT just another state that existed in Armenian Highland, and that 2. connection of Urartu with Armenia are not only geographic but also geneti, so to say? If yes, then in which brief FORMULA can that connection be better explained? Can we say that Urartu was a “pre-Armenia”? Or can we say that Urartu was a polytechnic state (dominated by Assyrian culture) in which the Armenian nation was born from a few “ingredients”? If yes, can you please list those main ingredients? I am asking this question in such a from because a few days ago a German friend asked me to quickly explain which is the connection between Urartu and Armenia... Thank you, MiB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 To the best that we can deduce from what is known, Urartu was probably one of the later "components" that formed the Armenian nation. Hayasa province/client kingdom of the Hittites can be regarded as the beginning of the Armenian nation. The language of the Urartuan ruling class, or at least its scribes, was not recognizably Armenian, or even Indo-European (as far as the linguists can tell these things). However, we don't know what language or languages the common people of Urartu spoke. Any direct records of it have not survived to the best of our knowledge. While the Urartian elite did borrow from Assyrian culture, notably the script, Urartian culture was not "Assyrian dominated". Apparently by 500BC, there was no distinction between the people of Urartu and the Armenians, if there ever was any distinction. So Urartu either simply signifies the easternmost extension of the Armenian people, or it simply melted into the Armenians by 500BC. From Movses Khorenatsi's history, it is not to difficult to identify the different components, and parallel histories of component peoples that are presented as a single chronological succession of events. The special attention Urartu receives in contemporary Armenian context is probably twofold. Present Armenia is much closer to the heartland of Urartu than to the location of Hayasa-Azzi, making it easier to think of it as the "origin". And the fact that it is much more prominent and better documented than an obscure province of the Hittite empire. But the name by which Armenians call themselves, the historical precedence (1350BC vs 800BC), and Khorenaztsi's History point to Urartu as a "component", rather than as the "beginning" or "origin". So Urartu was definitely not "pre-Armenian", since it came about half a millenium after Hayasa . But an important component it no doubt is, both culturally and ancestrally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Greetings MIB, Twilight Bark gave a rather good explanation. Urartian culture was NOT dominated by Assyrian culture by any stretch imagination. Urartu had a very distinct religion, language and culture however Uratians just like early Persians used the Assyrian writing method of cuneiform. Urartians spoke a Hurrian language. And yes they were simply the last major addition to the Armenian ethnogenesis which started with the native Hayasa-Azzi followed by three separate Indo-European invasions to the region first from the East & North and then from the West (Balkans). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted April 23, 2004 Report Share Posted April 23, 2004 Most, maybe all, of this has been covered on this forum in previous postings - try a search and you will probably find the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.