Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

whatever "we" were speaking, at least the tribe which we owe our language to was speaking proto-Armenian. We know that. What we don't know is exactly what it looked like, but we know it was Indo-European and probably had a vastly Indo-European lexicon, that mostly does not survive in any attested form of Armenian that we have, due to its shrowding by heavy borrowing from Iranian.

I want to work on it though, I believe we can clarify the picture of proto-Armenian at least by a touch, by using the comparative method to reconstruct its forms from its attested daughters. As I said, perhaps it'll help us determine whether or not it can be sub-grouped with Greek or Phrygian, since there are still come clinks in the chain for that hypothesis that cannot be worked out using just 5th C. Krapar for comparison.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

whatever "we" were speaking, at least the tribe which we owe our language to was speaking proto-Armenian. We know that. What we don't know is exactly what it looked like, but we know it was Indo-European and probably had a vastly Indo-European lexicon, that mostly does not survive in any attested form of Armenian that we have, due to its shrowding by heavy borrowing from Iranian.

I want to work on it though, I believe we can clarify the picture of proto-Armenian at least by a touch, by using the comparative method to reconstruct its forms from its attested daughters. As I said, perhaps it'll help us determine whether or not it can be sub-grouped with Greek or Phrygian, since there are still come clinks in the chain for that hypothesis that cannot be worked out using just 5th C. Krapar for comparison.

I'm eager to see the results of your research.

[ara87]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

I think that that in general, just b/c two names sound similar, doesn't mean that they're the same, or that one culture derived from the other. Assumptions cannot be made, especially when there isn't much information given, about the two culture's languages and histories.

If in a 1000 years someone looked back at a listing of ethnic groups of today, and only had the names and a map to go off of, they may think that the Romans, Romani, Romanians, and Aromanians, are the same people, or of the same group, when in fact the Romans only begat the Romanians and Aromanians, and the Romani are gypsies, who’s ancestors immigrated to Europe from medieval India.

Another scholar could think that Aromanians, Armeanians, and Arameans, are all related somehow, and that they came to their respective locations through migrations. That same scholar may also never realize that the Dutch and the Deutsch(Germans) are related if all he knows is the English name for the Deustsch, which is “Germany” or the French name “Allemagne.”

Thus, actually having linguistic, archeological, and historical evidence is key to accurately deciphering our history and language.

Is it more than coincidence that we are called Armenians, and that we call ourselves Hays and that there are two groups in history with names so similar it’s uncanny? Probably yes. But for all we know, the Hayasa could have just swooped in and killed every last Armen and set up camp, and other nations just kept on calling it the land of the Armens, thus making it seem like there's a connection when there really isn't.


Also according to info I found on wikipedia, the Georgians call us “Somkhet'i” and it says

The term "Somkhiti"/"Somkheti" is presumed by modern scholars to have been derived from "Sukhmi" or "Sokhmi", the name of an ancient land located by the Assyrian and Urartian records along the upper Euphrates.[3] According to Professor David Marshall Lang,

The name 'Sokhmi',[...] applied to tribes living along the upper Euphrates, seems to be perpetuated in the medieval and modern Georgian texts as a name for the Armenians in general – 'Somekhi', meaning 'an Armenian' and 'Somkheti' for 'Armenia'. Following the fall of Urartu and the Median invasion, there was further fusion and intermingling of all these tribes, so that 'Hai', 'Arme' and 'Sokhmi' became more or less synonymous. The Armenians themselves adopted the form 'Hai', the Georgians 'Somekhi', while the Iranians took over the form 'Armina', which in Greek or Latin turns into the familiar 'Armenia.'

So for all we know, our main ancestors could have been whoever the “Sukhmi/Sokhmi’s” were, or at least maybe where our language comes from (there are many unidentified root words) or some significant part of our culture comes from, and the names Armens and Hays just got tacked onto us, or perhaps Sukhmi is just another name for lands already part of Hayasa Azzi, but we'll never know for certain, unless we stop assuming and actually try to find out every single bit of information we possibly can.

To think if the Georgians just called us “Armenians” as well, probably no one would have ever made the the connection between it and Armenia

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

unless we stop assuming and actually try to find out every single bit of information we possibly can.

Yes I was aware of what Georgians call us, but what you just said was very interesting. Nevertheless, we shouldn't stop assuming. Theories may lead us to other discoveries. Without theories, we would be stuck where we are. Thanks to theories we can target locations to search and see if the theory fits or not. Some theories become truths thanks to this. Therefore, coming up with theories with whatever information we have helps in many ways. What we should stop doing is making theories and truths synonymous.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

Check this site out, it's pretty interesting:

http://www.atlasofworldhistory.com/ENGLISH/B0075.html

Look at what it says when you click on Armenia:

Armenia

Hatti expand [2500]. The Hatti, speakers of a Hurrian language, expanded southwest from the Caucausas Mountains and formed city-states in western and central Anatolia. Their Hurrian language is not related to the Semitic and Indo-European languages spoken in this region.

Hittites enter central Anatolia [2100]. The Hittites, who spoke an Indo-European langague, occupied lands that had been held by the Hatti.

• Iron making. The Hittites learned to make iron [1900]. Their weapons remained bronze because they produced small quantities of iron.

Hittite Old Kingdom [1586]. A strong leader formed a kingdom ['Land of Hatti'], moved the capital [from Nesa] to Hattusa [Boghazkoy], took Syria from the Hurrians [1580], and expanded west across Anatolia 'to the sea'. They sacked Babylon [1531], ending its Amorite dynasty.

• War chariots. Hittite warriors carrying long spears ['lances'] rode in horse-drawn chariots to attack enemy foot-soldiers.

Mitanni strong [1530]. A king's murder followed by succession problems weakened the Hittites. The Hurrian speaking Mitanni gained strength and became the most powerful kingdom in the region [1450/1380].

Hittite New Kingdom [1380]. The Hittites fortified their capital [Hattusas], developed a larger war chariot that carried three warriors, and defeated the Mittani [1380]. The son of a Hittite king traveled to Egypt to marry the widow of King Tut. He would have become pharaoh, but was murdered [1350]. The Hittites expanded to the southwest [1344].

Chariot warfare [1298]. The Hittites, while expanding, avoided powerful Egypt. The two states were drawn into battle after an Egyptian outpost [Kadesh] attack the Hittites. The resulting battle has been called the largest chariot battle in history [1298, Kadesh]. Hittite warriors using lances fought on 3-man chariots. Egyptian soldiers using bows and arrows rode faster 2-man chariots. Both sides claimed the victory.

• Peace Treaty. To end continuing attacks after the Battle of Kadesh [1298] the Hittites and Egyptians agreed on a border between the two states and signed peace treaty [1258]. A replica of the treaty is displayed at the United Nations headquarters because it is the earliest recorded peace agreement.

Hittites expand [1250]. The Hittites took the remaining Mitanni cities.

Phrygians attack Hittites [1190]. Indo-European speaking Phrygians entered Anatolia from the west and destroyed the Hittite capital [1190]. The Hittites continued to control other cities for another 400 years.

Phrygians settle [1100]. The Phrygians were one of the Sea Peoples that caused widespread destruction along the eastern Mediterranean coast. They formed a kingdom in central Anatolia. Their hostility to outsiders formed a barrier that separated eastern and western cultures.

Urartu form kingdom [860]. East of Phrygia, Hurrian speakers formed Urartu [860, 'Ararat'], established a capital at Van [830], and expanded [800/760].

• Menua Canal [Semiramis Canal]. This system of dams, canals, and cisterns for water storage enabled farming over a large area [732]. Parts remain in use today.

Urartu weak [714]. Raids by Semite Assyrians weaked the Urartu [714].

Phrygia destroyed [690]. North Iranian Cimmerians, fleeing from the North Iranian Scythians, destroyed Phrygia, ending its history [690]. Many Phrygians moved east and settled among the Urartu.

Urartu under Media [612]. The Iranian Medes conquered Urartu [612].

Armenians form kingdom [600]. Armenians formed a kingdom called 'Hayk' in memory of a legendary descendent of Noah whose ark landed nearby on Mt. Ararat. The name Armenia honors the first Urartian king [Arame]. The Armenian language evolved from the Hurrian language spoke by the Hatti, Mitanni, and Urartu and Indo-European language spoken by the Phrygians.

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

Check this site out, it's pretty interesting:

http://www.atlasofworldhistory.com/ENGLISH/B0075.html

Look at what it says when you click on Armenia:

1. We cannot yet subgroup Phrygian and Armenian together. Nor can we say Armenian is a Phrygian dialect. They are distinct languages and at best, and [can possibly] be subgrouped with Greek.
2. The Hatti language isn't affirmed to be "a Hurrian language" according to those who have worked on it.
3. Phrygians were resettled by Urartians in their domain during the latter's height in power. Not only were Phrygians settled there, but also Semitic Ugarits and many other neighbouring peoples who were now under Urartian power. Where Armenians come into the picture remains mysterious, and equating them with any of these peoples is a fatal shortcut.
3. Armenian is an Indo-European language. Armenian is not descended from Hurrian. The oldest Armenian we have attested does not reflect any significant inheritence from a non-Indo-European source. In the domain of syntax and morphology, it was probably very much influenced by all sorts of neighbouring languages, but its lexical core, the gauge we use to determine what family or branch a language hails from, rejects any notion that Armenian comes from Hurrian or anything of the like.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

1. We cannot yet subgroup Phrygian and Armenian together. Nor can we say Armenian is a Phrygian dialect. They are distinct languages and at best, can be subgrouped with Greek
2. The Hatti language isn't affirmed to be "a Hurrian language" according to those who have worked on it.
3. Phrygians were resettled by Urartians in their domain during the latter's height in power. Not only were Phrygians settled there, but also Semitic Ugarits and many other neighbouring peoples who were now under Urartian power. Where Armenians come into the picture remains mysterious, and equating them with any of these peoples is a fatal shortcut.
3. Armenian is an Indo-European language. Armenian is not descended from Hurrian. The oldest Armenian we have attested does not reflect any significant inheritence from a non-Indo-European source. In the domain of syntax and morphology, it was probably very much influenced by all sorts of neighbouring languages, but its lexical core, the gauge we use to determine what family or branch a language hails from, rejects any notion that Armenian comes from Hurrian or anything of the like.

Quick, direct, and irrefutable until/if new material is discovered

I posted this almost exclusively for this:

The name Armenia honors the first Urartian king [Arame]

Now this is the first time I hear this, unless it's what some historians say when they associate "Ara the Beautiful" or the legendary Armenian patriarch, Aram, with the first king of Urartu [Aramu/Arame].

Speaking of which, what do you think about that? It's an interesting coincidence that the first known king of Urartu was named Arame/Aramu, and one of the patriarchs of ancient Armenia, according to the history of Khorenatsi (which is generally accepted as somewhat mythical), is also called Aram.

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

Quick, direct, and irrefutable until/if new material is discovered

I posted this almost exclusively for this:


Now this is the first time I hear this, unless it's what some historians say when they associate "Ara the Beautiful" or the legendary Armenian patriarch, Aram, with the first king of Urartu [Aramu/Arame].

Speaking of which, what do you think about that? It's in interesting coincidence that the first known king of Urartu was named Arame/Aramu, and one of the patriarchs of ancient Armenia, according to the history of Khorenatsi which is generally accepted as somewhat mythical, is also called Aram.

I think the "Aram as a patriarch" hypothesis has some decent ground for being linked to the name of Arame. I'd like to investigate the phonology of Urartian Aramu/Arame vs. Armenian Aram and see if the last vowel being deleted is following a general pattern of Urartian terms/names showing up in Armenian records (there probably aren't that many instances of this to compare anyway). I wish we could know more about the last Urartian king Arame/Aramu, but I don't think much info exists about his cultural background from the records we have.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

I wish we could know more about the last Urartian king Arame/Aramu, but I don't think much info exists about his cultural background from the records we have.

Arame/Aramu is one of the first known kings of Urartu, not last.

Some think that Armenia's etymology is based on the Medians' confusion of Urartians/proto-Armenians with Arameans. Why would they confuse us with them? The name Aram. Harminuya/Armina might very well come from Aram/Aramu/Arame. "The lands of Aram, or the kingdom/satrapy of Aram." If that's the case, Urartu can legitimately be included in our history, regardless of the linguistic problem (Azaris speak a Turkic language, but that doesn't prevent them from including Atrpatakan in their history). Don't forget the Behistun inscription: Armina, Harminuya [Armenia], Urashtu [Urartu], are the names given to the kingdom in the Armenian Highlands (according to Darius I the Great, all 3 are synonymous). I'm not trying to be arrogant about this subject, but historians have good reasons to believe Armenia is the successor of Urartu, even though we don't have a step by step guide to how it happened. In the same fashion that Phoenicia is part of Lebanese history. One thing we can be sure is that Urartian is definitely not the predecessor of our language. Turkic wasn't the language of Atrpatakan, Arabic wasn't the language of Peonicia and Armenian wasn't the language of Urartu.

I also don't believe Khorenatsi's history is completely mythical. Khorenatsi put together all of what had reached the Armenian people as their history at the time. Sure, there are distortions which caused anachronism, and some things are mythical, but it's not surprising that one of the first kings of an ancient kingdom can still be remembered 1000 years later (Aramu). Semiramis was remembered. In fact, Khorenatsi clearly speaks of Urartu in his history: The Kingdom of Van.

http://www.tacentral.com/erebuni/urartu.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramu

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

http://www.armenian-history.com/Nyuter/HISTORY/ArmeniaBC/Urartu/kingdom_of_urartu.htm

[...]

Van-Tosp

The seat of this theocratic monarchy was Thuspa, capital of the territory of Biaina, corrupted into the form Van. The Armenian national historian, Moses of Khoren (Khorenatsi), mentions Van as "in the province of Tosp." In some of the ancient inscriptions, one finds, "King of Biaina, inhabiting the city of Thuspas." Going back into history we find Tiglat-Pileser I, King of Assyria, asserting that he conquered twenty-three kings of Nairi in 1114 B.C. These "kingdoms" must have been very small, indeed; and when we find that this same Tiglat claimed to have slain with his own hand ten elephants and 920 lions, we are inclined to receive his statements with reserve. In an inscription of the Assyrian Assurbelkala (1077‑1060 B.C.), first appears the name Uruatru. A Shalmanaser of Assyria (1028‑1017 B.C.), claimed the conquest of "the entire country of Uruatru" in three days. In inscriptions of Ashurnasirpal (885‑859 B.C.) the name appears as Urardhu or Urarthu. The succeeding king Shalmaneser, now called by most historians the Second (859‑825 B.C.) sent an army against a king of Urartu named Aramé, whose capital was Arzasku or Arzaskun, identified with the modern Melazgerd, north of Lake Van. Aramé, who, according to Adontz, was the first organizer of the Urartean Empire, was defeated and his capital taken by Shalmanaser in 857 B.C.

Arame

To say that he was the "organizer" of the Empire, means that he combined the "Nairi countries" into a confederation under the aegis of the god Khaldis, supplanting an earlier Biaina confederation. Some authorities believe that not Aramé but Sardur I (844‑828) was the organizer of the confederation. Sardur was the son of Lutipris, who succeeded Aramé. He left an inscription in the Assyrian language, calling himself King of Sura, which, according to Professor Albrecht Goetze, is the same as Subaru. If this is so, the Urartean kings' claim of Hurrite descent entitled them to domination in Subari, or Upper Mesopotamia. Sardur's other titles were "Great King," and "Ruler of Four Regions," i.e., Shar-Kishatti, according to Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions.

Sardur I

Sardur built a fortress of huge stones west of the Rock of Van, and Ispuinis, his son and successor, chose that rock as his residence and as the holy seat of the god Khaldis. Ispuinis was a contemporary of Adadnirari IV of Assyria, son of Shalmanaser and husband of Queen Shammuramat (Semiramis). Ispuinis fought and defeated his powerful rival, and was thus enabled to found a Khaldian colony at Musasir, west of the Pass of Kelishinin, where he erected a commemorative stone with inscriptions in Khaldian and Assyrian. Ispuinis and his son Menuas brought the empire to its peak. Under them it extended from the Zagros Mountains in the East to Palu in the North and Malatia in the West.

During their reigns great works were constructed around Van, including the aqueduct of Shamiram‑Su, 45 miles in length, completed by Menuas, which brought the pure water of the Khoshab River to the eastern shores of Lake Van (whose water is undrinkable), enabling the King to found there a "Menuas city." This canal irrigates the plain of Van even to the present time.

[cont'd...]

Տոսպայ լիճ (Dosba Lidj/Tospa Litch) is also a name we give to lake Van. Tospa = Tushpa.