Why Did Not Armen Ayvazyan Get Phd?

[Teutonic Knight]

Yes but he was not considered the ancestor of the UNIFIED Armenian NATION because there was no unified Armenian nation until this period.

I don't know about 2492 BC, but there is no indication that "Hayk" waited until Urartu's destruction to become the "ancestor". First, let's drop the pretense that Hayk was a real person. Probably almost all those mythical "person" names refer to the names of individual peoples (i.e. tribes), and the names of Haykazian "kings" symbolize the assimilation of those tribes into Hayk. The Hayk (people) were around before anyone had heard of Urartu, but part of their kin could have fallen under the rule of the Urartuan dynasty later. In any event, there is nothing of record that justifies the assignment of the fall of Urartu as the "proper" beginning of a "unified" Hay people. And if we need to associate "Bel" with a local tribe, how about the Palaic people? It is quite reasonable to think that the Hayk had to wage some sort of a struggle against the Palaic tribes (cousins and contemporaries of Hittites) in order to gain a coherent identity. No proof for any of this one way or the other, but the evidence fits the emergence of a coherent Hay identity long before the formation of the Urartu Kingdom, probably somewhere between 2000BC and 1400BC. And we didn't even touch the linguistic analysis of Gray & Atkinson yet, which would suggest a much earlier date for the isolation of a distinct group of proto-Hay speakers, if not a self-aware tribe.

Hayassa have been around way before Urarteans but not Hurrians i'm talking about the unified nation of Armenia including everyone from Armens, Urarteans, Nairi etc.. A point after which no other nations or tribes were assimilated or added.

For example the English become the English after the Norman conquest and remain the same to this day.

 

Now regarding Gray & Atkinson. I always thought the Black Sea shores were related to IE culture and it's origin but that doesn't mean it was south of the Black Sea. Lets also put this into context with J.P.Mallory's, Pitman and Ryan etc. research.

 

This is all very cute and novel, but it should not be taken as gospel. It's long been understood that glottochronology and lexicostatistical comparisons are not sufficient for presenting an accurate picture of linguistic change.

 

Now G&A's research is to a great extent based on that of the anthropologist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, who attempted to show some relation between genetics and language . Cavalli-Sforza's work has been widely regarded as a breach of the scientific method. Colin Renfrew postulated an Anatolian origin of IE several years ago, even publishing a book on it. He then retracted this hypothesis shortly after the book was published. Turks are having a field day with this. When this came out my local paper had this 'Origin of the English language comes from Turkey.'

 

In any event, this research by Atkinson and Gray does nothing to further our knowledge about the Indo-European homeland. Considering that the Anatolian languages were probably in development long before any system of writing was developed for them, locating their origin around Catal Hayuk is problematic at best. Who's to say that the ancestors of the Anatolians, having made some break with other IE peoples well before any evidence of their languages appeared in written form, didn't migrate into Anatolia from elsewhere?

[Twilight Bark]

A point after which no other nations or tribes were assimilated or added.

Such a point does not exist. Furthermore, we don't know if the bulk of the ordinary people of Urartu (as opposed to the rulers) were not close relatives of the people of Hayassa. If they were of essentially similar ancestry, there is no real fresh addition at that point. But in any case, the further addition and assimilation is an ongoing process; it never stopped.

 

I always thought the Black Sea shores were related to IE culture and it's origin but that doesn't mean it was south of the Black Sea.

I agree with that much, as I also speculated along those lines in another thread.

 

As for Gray & Atkinson, their work is very thoughtful and high-caliber; it is no ordinary glottochronology and can stand on its own without me defending it, and I'll leave it at that.

 

As for the IE homeland. While one cannot be sure, it is a matter of relative confidence. It is not reasonable to arbitrarily place it somewhere far from the place where it was first assessed, especially if that place gave much of the rest of the basic civilization to the rest of Western Eurasia. In any case, it doesn't really matter. Whether Armenians spoke an IE dialect at the periphery of an original dry-Black-Sea homeland, or were right smack in the middle of its originating point is beside the point. Their main, identity-forming component did not need to come from Thrace. There is no credible evidence showing that Armenians came (or somehow had to come) with the Phrygians and became a distinct identity only by 520 BC, long after the recorded existence of a "Land of Hays".

[Ludwig9]

Their main, identity-forming component did not need to come from Thrace. There is no credible evidence showing that Armenians came (or somehow had to come) with the Phrygians and became a distinct identity only by 520 BC, long after the recorded existence of a "Land of Hays".

 

Excellent point. Most western scholars state that the Armenians got there main culture from Thrace. I have also read articles by J. Russell that the Armenians got their language and culture from the Persians. Any comments ?

[bellthecat]

that's not true. if i'm not mistaken the Haik & bel battle is believed to have been taken place in 2492 bc. urartu was "destructed" about 1500 years later

Is this the legendary battle that was said to have taken place below the castle of "Haikberd" (the Urartian temple-fortress from the 8th century BC now known as Chavushtepe, near Van)?

[Ludwig9]

I will check up on the dates this weekend.