Origins of the Armenian peoples

[jahannam]

hahahhaah
you know anileve!
she thought it sounds more "sophisticated" if it's "XISUTHROS"???
or "berosus" ...
anyway...moving on...

[Anonymouse]

Well, well, well, aren't you the intelligent one!

[TJ]

And the word Armenian comes from Armen Hayk's son. can we believe in stories for once and ignore the fact that the world is so mundane and boring and there is no charm. Its much more romantic than thousands of years of assimilation .

[Shahumyan]

Originally posted by dtox LOL, how come some people hate the Turks, and some people don't? It's kind of odd, seeing as what they did to our race.

Only the most backward elements hate the turks. What is the logical explaination to hate turks of 2day? How can they be blamed for being brainwashed by their ruling class?

The only ones to hate are those who purposely go out to falsify history and are on the pay package of the turkish govt, these so called scholars are who we should hate and critisize, not the entire turkish population

by hating turks we polarise them away from us, by doing so they wont accept what happened in 1915, which is not what we want. We want justice to be done, and that can only be brought about by mature discussion and acceptance.

[jahannam]

Originally posted by Shahumyan

by hating turks we polarise them away from us, by doing so they wont accept what happened in 1915, which is not what we want. We want justice to be done, and that can only be brought about by mature discussion and acceptance.

I'd hate to be promoting "hatred" here
but is it me? or are you suggesting turks WILL accept what happened in 1915 if we "loved" them???
can I get the logic behind that? if there's any?
and ummm the last time I checked, you CAN have mature discussion with people you don't necessarily like...
cheers.

[Anonymouse]

But perhaps a mature discussion might actually lead them to be critical of their own viewpoint and hence win them to your side, instead of casting them off.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well lets see there are several theories of Armenian ethnogenesis.

There is the Armenian epic detailed my Movses Khorenatis of the legend of Hayk and Bel, in which Hayk fought Bel and protected the Armenian family and identity, a small people resisting a giant tyrant. Hayk is seen as the name giver of Armenians, who call themselves "Hay", Bel, or Baal is the Assyrian god, and later attributed to the Babylonians. This epic itself is what has permeated the Armenian cultural consciousness of a small people resisting the the giant tyrants. Hayk was seen as a descendent of Noah from the Bible and his Ark which is said to be on Ararat. It is interesting to note that many of the genologies described by Movses were indeed correct which then leaves in my mind, how much more accurate can the epic be? Is there any more truth to it? The epic is indeed the most interesting to me at least.

Then there is the theory in which Armenians were part of the Indo-European migrations who settled in what is now called the Armenian plateau. First attributed to Herodotus, he claimed that the Armenians came from Thrace, along with the Phrygians, and the Armenians spoke a similar language. Those that moved most eastward eventually became the Armenans.

Of course there is much contention on the origin of the term "Hay". Some say it was acquired by Armenians as they traveled through Asia Minor via the Hittite Empire, and the term "Hay" is really another term they adopted from the word Hittite, in Greek, Hati-yos, and it is said that the "t" is dropped.

Of course the first reference to "Armenians" comes to us under Darius I of the Achaemenian Empire in the form of "Armina" inscribed on the Behistun rock around 520 B.C.

The Assyrians referred to that entire regions as Urartu or Urashti, along with many variations. Some say that Armenians as they migrated towards present day Armenian plateau adopted many forms, customs, and names from the people they interacted with such as the Hittites, but mainly Urartu. That names such as Ararat, or Aram ( Urartian King known as Arame or Aramu ) are among us today show bear mark on the influence.

To put it in a nutshell, the "classical" hypothesis, states that Armenians migrated from Thrace, ala Herodotus, and adopted and adapted themselves to many customs of their neighboring peoples, namely Urartu, as is evident from the study of linguistics. So from Hati yos the Armenian word Hay is said to have developed.

The Armenian epic contends differently as Hayk is the name giver of Armenians. The current "revisionist" hypothesis is that the Armenians have always been native to that region, and as evidence scholars point to the region in the Armenian plateau known as Hayasa, from which Armenians adotped their name Hay. They contend that Armenians have always been native to that region. Basing their theory on not only linguistics, but also archaeology, they suggest that certain agricultural techniques were first developed in Armenia then spread from there. There is a whole school of revisionist liguistic and archaeological data on the theory that Armenians were in fact native to that region

However Urartean influence cannot be denied. In the case of the Armenian artsiv was a totemic animal of the Urartean Arstrunis. In the case of Ararat, which the Assyrians I believed referred to the Urartians. Ararat, Urartu, bear linguistic similarities, or the establishment of Erebuni, in what is no Erevan or Yerevan. Armenians place names such as Van, from the Urartian Baina, or Tosp from the Urartian Tushpa, or Erevan from Erebuni, and Garni from Giarniani, all bear mark to the influence and interaction.

That is pretty much the sum and substance of the basics of Armenian ethnogenesis.

Herod. was a biased simpleton whom even in his fact he said he was not sure and surely flawed himself. He literally ADMITS that. However, yes we realize LATER ON there was influence but see your theisis is unclear there because if you RIGHT NOW go read Assyrian history like RIGHT NOW it says NOTHING of which you ve stated about Urartu there. IT doesnt even say anything close to what they called that region above that place to the indigenous people. Sorry to burst your bubble I was just relying on physical evidence in the ruins found as opposed to your ideological interpretations.

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But perhaps a mature discussion might actually lead them to be critical of their own viewpoint and hence win them to your side, instead of casting them off.

This shall sum it up for you. I rely and request you to fairly match the dates up with your historical facts one by one. Here is the Assyrian Language tracings to have been found in an article.

Assyrians have used two languages throughout their history: ancient Assyrian (Akkadian)THAT IS THE CITY, and Modern Assyrian (neo-syriac). Akkadian was written with the cuneiform writing system, on clay tablets, and was in use from the beginning to about 750 B.C.. By 750 B.C., a new way of writing, on parchment, leather, or papyrus, was developed, and the people who brought this method of writing with them, the Arameans, would eventually see their language, Aramaic, supplant Ancient Assyrian because of the technological breakthrough in writing. Aramaic was made the second official language of the Assyrian empire in 752 B.C. Although Assyrians switched to Aramaic, it was not wholesale transplantation. The brand of Aramaic that Assyrians spoke was, and is, heavily infused with Akkadian words, so much so that scholars refer to it as

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Anonymouse But perhaps a mature discussion might actually lead them to be critical of their own viewpoint and hence win them to your side, instead of casting them off.

This shall sum it up for you. I rely and request you to fairly match the dates up with your historical facts one by one. Here is the Assyrian Language tracings to have been found in an article.

Assyrians have used two languages throughout their history: ancient Assyrian (Akkadian)THAT IS THE CITY, and Modern Assyrian (neo-syriac). Akkadian was written with the cuneiform writing system, on clay tablets, and was in use from the beginning to about 750 B.C.. By 750 B.C., a new way of writing, on parchment, leather, or papyrus, was developed, and the people who brought this method of writing with them, the Arameans, would eventually see their language, Aramaic, supplant Ancient Assyrian because of the technological breakthrough in writing. Aramaic was made the second official language of the Assyrian empire in 752 B.C. Although Assyrians switched to Aramaic, it was not wholesale transplantation. The brand of Aramaic that Assyrians spoke was, and is, heavily infused with Akkadian words, so much so that scholars refer to it as.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.aina.org/images/assyria6.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/brief.htm&h=227&w=300&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAssyrian%2BEmpire%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

[Nimrod]

New found Information

Observe for yourself. I urge you to really read carefully as to WHY or WHOM the Aramai people first were as well as the dates of these significant pieces of ancient old history.


The Uranian Empire once controlled the two nations that now make up Armania, Aramai (air-a-may) and Cormyr (core-me-yer). As the arians (people of Aramai) defeated the Uranian empire and drove them north from their lands. They continued to route the Uranians through what was once Cormyr ‘freeing’ that nation as well. However the aramai people quickly established their king as the ruler of the Cormyr lands. The Uranian Empire was defeated and this once great empire crumbled and became extinct. However Armania continued to expand, north into Kellsor and east into what is now Lyone. This kingdom fluctuated in size then were finally pushed south from Kellsor. The tensions between Lyone and Armania continued for many years to follow, but eventually Lyone drove the Armanians mostly from their lands. Although Armania was eventually driven back from the countries it occupied during it’s expansion, Cormyr is still part of Armania and has little to no rebellion within this former country.

http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/first_world/armania.html