Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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

You cant claim have influence of Greece culture since we where regional and culturally most powerful centuries before Alexander.

But can you tell me what we spoke back then (before Alexander)? Like I said, we know what we were speaking 9 centuries after our nation's existence (well after Alexander), not before.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

I know what you said - I was wondering what source do you have to back up what you said? What source says that Urartu was a federation and that the provinces of Urartu retained a degree of independence?

Funny enough, M. Chahin, who is mentioned in this thread, says it was a federation. Although he is definitely not the only person who has made that claim. Jgk3's explanation backs up this point.

We can also see evidence of a federative political organization in the cuneiform inscriptions left by Urartian kings. The following inscription was commissioned by Rusa I in which he discusses how Urartu ruled over its religious center at Musasir (aka Ardini):

"Urzana I established as ruler of Ardini. I took Urzana by the hand and set him upon the high throne of the kings of Ardini. He led me into the temple. For fifteen days sacrifices he offered, in the presence of his gods and in my presence. Urzana and his men took the oath of loyalty to me. Urzana gave me his warrirors and all his war chariots. In obedience to Khaldi, my Lord, I went to the mountains of Assyria, in the the land of Lullu (Akkad) and did a great slaughter of the men of Ashur, the enemy of Khaldi."

So we have sources from the Urartian kings themselves which clearly show that the Kings of Urartu would install lesser kings in the territories they controlled and extract tribute from them, which is more-or-less how all Armenian dynasties organized their political power. Here is another cuneiform inscription, this time from Argishti I, describing some of his conquests:

"The people of the three countries, Bias, Khusas and Didis, I despoiled. The soldiers with fire I burnt; 15,181 children, 2,734 men, 10,504 women, 4,426 horses, 10,478 oxen, 73,500 sheep, I carried away. The people of the two kings I destroyed. Governors and law-givers I set up. The king of Diaves [Diauehi] and his son I carried away. I changed his name and he to Argishti brought 41 manehs of gold, 37 manehs of silver, 1,000 manehs of bronze, 1,000 war magazines, 300 oxen and 1,000 sheep. And he my laws took. In the land of King Diaus, I set up impost and tribute gold, bronze, oxen, sheep and war magazines..."

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

I enjoy our discussion btw and think we've made a pretty neat thread together for our forums as a result.

As a new member of this forum, and my first thread, I take this as a warm welcome

In a treaty signed with Hakkani, Suppiluliuma I mentions a series of obligations of civil right:

"My sister, whom I gave you in marriage has sisters; through your marriage, they now become your relatives. Well, there is a law in the land of the Hatti. Do not approach sisters, your sisters-in law or your cousins; that is not permitted. In Hatti Land, whosoever commits such an act does not live; he dies. In your country, you do not hesitate to marry your own sister, sister-in law or cousin, because you are not civilized. Such an act cannot be permitted in Hatti."

Yes, that's what I was referring to when I said Hittites called Hayasans "barbarians"

To tell you the truth, The Peoples of Ararat is not really about Armenians. It's simply the story of the Sumerians, Hattites, Hurrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Babylonians, Mitanni, Assyrians, and finally Urartians, all based on the inscriptions uncovered thus far, and when interesting, how the archeologists discovered them. In my opinion, by "The Peoples of Ararat," the authors are inferring "The Proto-Armenians." But I think the authors were also trying to reach a broader audience by telling the story of Noah's legendary mountain from the Bible, Mount Ararat.* It talks about the oldest civilizations to have lived in or around our homelands that might have affected the creation of our nation. There are 22 chapters, with 292 pages, and chapter 22, in ten pages, is entitled "the Armenians," just to tell you how much Armenians are discussed in the book. It's still a very interesting book. The authors are Armen Asher & Teryl Minasian Asher. The authors' point of view is that Armenians are the last surviving 'peoples of Ararat,' and that we are the amalgamation of them all, with the Phrygians and Medians, in Urartu.

On Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Ararat-Armen-Asher/dp/1439225672/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266109178&sr=8-1

I found an interesting document (one of the references in "Peoples of Ararat"):

http://www.arak29.am/PDF_PPT/7-History/Armenian%20origins.htm

* Which in reality, was falsely associated with Masis by Armenians who misinformed travellers who came to see the famed mountain of Noah. In the Bible, Ararat = Urartu.

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

You do well, in my opinion. You make me realize that some of my info is based on outdated theories (although the book "Peoples of Ararat" was released in 2009). My "assumptions" are really nothing more than proposals I'm putting on the table for discussing. Some of them may be based on inaccurate or outdated theories/discoveries (which is what I want to correct).

But there really is nothing we know about Hayasa other than the fact that Hittites called them "barbaric"? We have no idea how that kingdom ceased to exist? As I repeat, it's hard to imagine how Hayasa and Lesser Hayastan (Pokr Hayk), both situated at the exact same location (Modern-day Sivas, Erzincan,..), with an almost completely identical name, are unrelated.

Jgk3, do you study in this field, or is it a personal hobby thing?

Thank you SevSpitak, I enjoy our discussion btw and think we've made a pretty neat thread together for our forums as a result. I want to state though that just because some theories are outdated does not mean they are incorrect. It merely means that they have yet to be compared with all the conclusions we've made related to the topic since then, and this is my intention. If possible, can you provide us with the bibliography of "The people's of Ararat"?

Btw, one reason that I'm aware of for why the Hittites considered the Hayasa as barbaric is the following Hittite record:

In a treaty signed with Hakkani, Suppiluliuma I mentions a series of obligations of civil right:

"My sister, whom I gave you in marriage has sisters; through your marriage, they now become your relatives. Well, there is a law in the land of the Hatti. Do not approach sisters, your sisters-in law or your cousins; that is not permitted. In Hatti Land, whosoever commits such an act does not live; he dies. In your country, you do not hesitate to marry your own sister, sister-in law or cousin, because you are not civilized. Such an act cannot be permitted in Hatti."

And the reason why Pokr Hayk arose where it did might have more to do with the fact that Achaemenid Persia could not directly control it anymore, than with any genetic relation to Hayasa. There was a political vacuum, and an Armenian filled it by proclaiming himself as king over that territory, the same as what the Armenians did in Urartu. The cultural links between the actual peoples who lived in these territories is shrouded in darkness.

I study linguistics as an undergrad actually, and I am interested in continuing in graduate studies.

[UrMistake]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

You cant claim have influence of Greece culture since we where regional and culturally most powerful centuries before Alexander.