Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History
I find you have a pessimistic point of view on the subject. Of course we don't have concrete evidence about the origin of the Armenians, but we use whatever we have to explain it. It's not like we popped out of nowhere, we came from something. There is no doubt Armenians are related to Urartu, Hayasa, Iran, Assyria and/or Hittites, etc, whether it be merely geopolitically, culturally, linguistically, genetically, we are somehow directly connected to them. We just don't know the details, the hows, and we have come up with theories.
"One long-held theory, which has lost considerable support in recent years,..."
"Another theory, one which is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars in this field,..."
"The section of the Phrygian community which would most likely have dominated Hayasa,..."
None of these historians affirm that what they are saying is the truth. With languisitics, archeology, etymology, etc. and following the most widely accepted theories, we assume this is what happened. Like how we assume the Big Bang happened. Like you said, we don't even know if the Indo-Europeans appeared where it is accepted. Armenians might have been a minority in Urartu since the beginning. Nevertheless, this doesn't prevent us from speculating, and no one is saying that our speculations are true. I didn't post this thread for the truth. I posted it to know what we theorize thus far.
Since you seem to have a good knowledge on this subject, tell me what's the latest theory about the origin of the Armenians?
I find you have a pessimistic point of view on the subject. Of course we don't have concrete evidence about the origin of the Armenians, but we use whatever we have to explain it. It's not like we popped out of nowhere, we came from something. There is no doubt Armenians are related to Urartu, Hayasa, Iran, Assyria and/or Hittites, etc, whether it be merely geopolitically, culturally, linguistically, genetically, we are somehow directly connected to them. We just don't know the details, the hows, and we have come up with theories.
"One long-held theory, which has lost considerable support in recent years,..."
"Another theory, one which is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of scholars in this field,..."
"The section of the Phrygian community which would most likely have dominated Hayasa,..."
None of these historians affirm that what they are saying is the truth. With languisitics, archeology, etymology, etc. and following the most widely accepted theories, we assume this is what happened. Like how we assume the Big Bang happened. Like you said, we don't even know if the Indo-Europeans appeared where it is accepted. Armenians might have been a minority in Urartu since the beginning. Nevertheless, this doesn't prevent us from speculating, and no one is saying that our speculations are true. I didn't post this thread for the truth. I posted it to know what we theorize thus far.
Since you seem to have a good knowledge on this subject, tell me what's the latest theory about the origin of the Armenians?
Comment