Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

[SevSpitak]

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?

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

You're right, none of these academics affirm they are saying the truth, but Armenian lay people are. So in consequence, I want to separate what we know to be fact from what is pure speculation gone wild.

I don't know the latest theory concerning the origin of the Armenians, I don't even know what Armenians are beyond the 6th century BC. That is not to say we didn't exist, but we definitely weren't the homogenous identity our name has refered to since Khorenatsi's time. There have definitely been many normalizing effects made on our people at a very early date. Not many nations which survive today can point to the 5th C. and see their particular identity and national consciousness. Compared to European nations, we are definitely an early nation. But there are limits to this earliness, and it seems the Armenian consciousness, which is so used to always existing, so used to referring to an epic hero Hayk (which dates to pre-Armenian times), and yet is so ennerved by its history of being subjugated by foreign powers, is particularily fascinated in any speculative associations to ancient, thriving civilizations which can offer it a sense of honour and pride towards its heritage.

This is not uncommon of ethnic groups, the Chinese of today for example consider themselves to be Han Chinese, referring to the Chinese imperial dynasty from Roman times as their true origin. They refer to the Han China as a golden age of their civilization, a worthy ancestor of their race and legacy, when in reality it was quite bankrupt and had very poor living conditions that did little to promote cultural advancement. It was just a political regime that would come to fail and be replaced by new ones which would do more to actually promote cultural advancement, such as the T'ang and Song dynasties of the 7th-13th C. under which the cultural, political, and social currents did much more to build up the bullwark of Chinese civilization as we know it today.

Thus, if we want to link ourselves to Urartu, or even Hayasa, and our motive is to feel a sense of satisfaction as Armenians by doing so, whatever... It doesn't yield much in terms of explaining what Armenia or being Armenian is. I know that Armenians were the successful cultural/political force in the region, because they managed to extinguish and assimilate rival cultures under the Urartian federation it came to conquer. And in my opinion, this was likely a deliberate strategy of the Medes, a rival of the Urartu. After finally defeating Urartu, the Medes took it over as a vassal state, appointing the Armenians, likely a tribe with relative military influence in the region, as its rulers, and consequently replacing the old Urartian institutions with ones more congruent with Median ones. This period is probably associated with the emergence of Zoroastrianism in Armenia.

Beyond this, I have nothing to say. I would like to work on reconstructing proto-Armenian by comparing Krapar with all the other dialects of Armenian, as this might help me to better compare Armenian to Greek (and perhaps Phrygian) and have a better idea of whether they could be sub-grouped together (which would make them closer genetically) or not. This might be the only thing we have to work with in charting the migration of the particular tribe we owe our Armenian language to.

I want to thank you for provoking this discussion, it has allowed me to impart my present views, which I've only recently held. I apologize if I come off as too cold or pessimistic. In my opinion, there is much to rejoice in having a clearly defined arena of scholarship to work in such as historical linguistics.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

There's no argument there, I completely agree. It reminds me of "Azerbaijanis" associating themselves with Aghvank in order to make themselves native.

[jgk3]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

Of course, if you look at their dna, I'm sure you could say there's some association. No doubt, the stock of people living in these regions have remained there more or less, with some mixing as a result of historical migrations. But what we are dealing with is cultural and political associations here, and so if we want to relate ourselves to Urartu, we'd better have insightful reasons for doing so, other than just for the sake of being around longer in history. If we have an expert here on what we've inherited in particular from Urartian society, please enlighten us. I already have some ideas but it is not my domain of study, yet.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

Sure, there's surely some association, but when Arran fell, its people assimilated into the larger muslim world and faded away, those loyal to Christianity surely mixed with the Armenians and Georgians (similar to what happened to Assyrians after the Christian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire). We can say Arran is Azerbaijan as much as we can say Cappadocians are Turks. There is no linguistic, cultural, religious or ethnic continuity, they were absorbed in the dominant civilization and faded from the pages of history.

In fact, "Azerbaijan" (the one fabricated in 1918) came into existence 1200 years after the integration of Arran into the larger Arab/Turkic/Persian world. Arran slowly became nothing more than a regional name with no association to an ethnic identity. In fact, Arran was itself ethnically diverse and this contributed to its fall (as its unity was fragile). The last remnant of Arran are the Udins. Armenia came into existence merely ~50 years after the fall of Urartu (and we say this only because we have no evidence of an earlier date, to my knowledge. Maybe Armenia came into existence immediately after Urartu). We can say Urartu continued in Armenia (no matter the circumstances -- whether through invasions, population replacement, amalgamation, etc, Urartu DID become Armenia), but to say that Arran (aghvank) continued in "Azerbaijan" is farfetched. Saying so is mixing politics with history.

In any case, this is kind of off topic. M. Chahin mentions that we inherited much from Urartu, (I haven't finished the book yet). I'll post here whatever he says once I reach that point.

As of the last time Urartians were mentioned:
"The Urartians were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity. They are last heard of as the Alarodii, a contingent in Xerxes' forces against Greece in 480 BC (Herod. VII. 79). One of the three peoples in Darius' 18th Satrapy, which later became Eastern Armenia, their north-western frontier marched with the north-eastern boundary of Western Armenia -- Darius' 13th satrapy, Armina."
Mack Chahin, Kingdom of Armenia, A History, 1987, revised in 2001

[Armanen]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

One could also see the people of Urartu not as an ethnic group at all, but purely a political confederation, similar to the EU now adays. The issue then would be why was the language spoken in Urartu, Urartuian, and from what tribe/ethnicity did this language come from.

I'd like to read Catharsis' opinion on this issue.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

If we have an expert here on what we've inherited in particular from Urartian society, please enlighten us. I already have some ideas but it is not my domain of study, yet.

I'm definitely nowhere near an expert on the topic, but here are some of the things I've noticed which I'm sure you have heard about. Feel free to chime in on any of this.

For one, Urartu like Armenia was ruled as a federate kingdom in which the ruling dynasty was centered around the capital while the provincial rulers paid tribute to the king. This type of organization continued through to the last Armenian kingdom in the Armenian Highlands, the Bagratunis. Sure, this organization was fairly common among more "advanced" states at that time, but the fact it never changed for thousands of years means that the Urartians and Armenians dealt with the geographic nature of the Armenian Highlands in the same way. Its been claimed that Urartians also used the title "Erili Erilaue", or King of Kings, which if true, shows that Armenians in fact did not adopt this title from Iranians, but from their own ancestors. So its not much of a stretch to say that our method of state organization was inherited from Urartu.

Another aspect which is fairly important is the connection between the Urartian god Haldi/Khaldi and the figure of Hayk. Not only can we find similarities in their names, but we can also see similar characteristics ascribed to each figure. Khaldi was a figure that was recognized by Urartians as their original ancestor, which is exactly the same distinction that Hayk holds in Armenian tradition. It means that Armenians, like the Urartians before them, placed a high value on the merits of their forefathers and the importance of respecting their ancestors and continuing their traditions. Some non-Armenian scholars even claimed that the Urartians called themselves Khaldini, similar to how Armenians call themselves Hay after Hayk--- Although the popular stance is that Urartians called themselves Bianili, after Lake Van. I have failed to understand whether ALL citizens of Urartu called themselves this, or simply the elite classes which were centered around Lake Van in places like Tushpa and Arzashkun. Maybe you know more about this than I do.

Another similarity between Urartu and Armenia that I've noticed is certain symbols used in their artwork. The most predominant and continuous one I have noticed is the eternity symbol (some call it the Aryan swastika or the wheel of eternity). This can be found on numerous Khachkars throughout the centuries, and it just so happens the symbol was also frequently used in Urartian art, most notably in palace frescoes and royal decorative shields. I don't know for sure whether the symbol meant the same thing to both societies, but its clear that Urartians and Armenians both used this symbol when creating art for important purposes (Urartians for the royalty while Armenians for religious works, although Urartu was somewhat of a theocracy, in which case the symbol might have always held a religious significance).

I think another factor which can speak for the Urartu-Armenian connection is the transition between the fall of Urartu and the rise of the Armenians. We know for sure that the transition took at most a handful of years (Urartu fell in 590 while the Yervandunis were reigning at least since 585, maybe even before), with the Yervandunis inheriting more-or-less the same boundaries as the Urartian federation. Therefore its entirely plausible that Armenians were already established (or even the main body) in the Urartian federation prior to its collapse. Its even claimed by many scholars that the last few kings of Urartu were in fact Armenians, with one of the kings named Erimena. The point you raised about the Medes was also interesting, and its possible that it factored into the equation somehow. Armenians are infamous throughout our history for competing domestically with one another by being for and against the influence of a powerful neighbor, so if you are right about the Medes then this trend is older than many of us suspected.

As for the official language of Urartu, I am not an expert on the topic, but here is what I've heard from a few sources. Out of the hundreds of Urartian inscriptions found, there are only around 350-400 words in the language, with no linguistic progression for centuries, which is not typical of a spoken language (you also mentioned this). If this is true, then its very possible that the Urartian language was much like the official Latin language used in Medieval European government, while the population spoke their own language (possibly Armenian or proto-Armenian).

I have actually read most of this book that SevSpitak is talking about, but I was not able to find the sections that discuss these similarities in detail--- I think they are scattered throughout the book as the author covers the different topics and events, as opposed to being collected under one section. Its been a while since I’ve read about this topic myself, so a lot of the stuff I'm mentioning to you is off the top of my head.

Look at Rshtuni, who are believed to be descended from King Rusas of Urartu, in this case, a "t" would seem to appear out of nowhere if the suffix was indeed "uni", borrowed from Urartian.

I don't know how to deal with the example of Arshakuni though, so I guess I can say, no I'm not sure about it coming from a suffix "tuni". If it does come from "tuni", then it would have to mean that in Armenian, "t" sounds get dropped in that environment. So thanks for bringing it up.

There are also the families of Siuni, Gnuni, Khorkhoruni, Artzruni, Pahlavuni, Bznuni, Mandakuni, and many more which clearly show the -uni suffix. I think its a hasty conclusion to say that this suffix has no connection whatsoever to the Urartian one when there are more examples of -uni than -tuni. Like Federate said the -duni or -tuni suffix for Yervandunis and Bagratunis are there because Yervand and Bagrat are names by themselves with the -uni suffix added.

As for Rshtuni, you bring up an interesting point. There was also a family called Arrantun (house of Arran?). Although like I said, the vast majority of Armenian nobility had an -uni suffix as opposed to -tuni, and many of the names that end in -tuni can be ascribed to the root names like Bagrat and Yervand/t.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

For one, Urartu like Armenia was ruled as a federate kingdom in which the ruling dynasty was centered around the capital while the provincial rulers paid tribute to the king.

Says who? Urartian sites in all corners of their kingdom display a surprising degree of similarity - they are all architecturally very similar, with near identical temples and pillared halls, and storerooms - and objects found in them are very similar, depicting similar looking gods and symbols. Which suggest a very centralised authority. Or a very culturally united population.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

We shouldn't forget Mitanni. Some suggest that as a result of Assyrian invasions, some royal dynasties of Mitanni (who were Hurro-Aryan) migrated north to the highlands of Urartu (which is assumed to be the Assyrian pronunciation of "Arrata" of the Sumerians) and established a new empire there, incorporating all small local kingdoms.

I don't know these ancient languages, but since it's of Hurrian origin, I am allowing myself to assume that Urartian might be a dialect of Mitanni with little to no Aryan influence (correct me if it's impossible). That's just a wild guess and open for criticism. We also think that Urartu came into existence because of a threat of Assyrian invasion. It's very likely that some Mitanni, also fleeing Assyrian invasions, found refuge in Urartu and contributed to creating the kingdom. In fact, we don't even know when Urartu began. Our first reference to is dated back to the 13th century BC. Most of what we know happened from the 9th to 6th centuries BC, the earlier times are still very mysterious. Speaking of languages, we don't even know what Armenian was like prior to the creation of our alphabet. It is 100% sure that in 9 centuries, the original Armenian language almost completely changed). We might be speaking a later offshoot of Mitanni which lost most of its Hurrian element. (There are so many possibilities if I end up talking about Adam and Eve, don't be surprised).

Another wild guess : We know Hurrians migrated from the Caucasus, probably from Urartu/Ararat/[Arrata] to modern-day Syria. We can assume that, during this time, when migrations were common, Hurrophones probably ceased to exist, and it was only kept through scribes (who conserved it with cuneiform). It could have been seen as an ancient holy language to them used only for important matters (as the language of Khaldi). But this is farfetched, and likely to be untrue since, from what I have read, the language only became exclusively used in later periods of the Urartian Empire. At first kings wrote in Assyrian, then as the empire gained power, Assyrian and Urartian, until Assyrian ceased to be used at all.

As for the question whether we are Urartians or not, there's only one answer to that: Urartu/Ararat/[Arrata] is a regional name, not one of an ethnic group. We are Urartians as we live in Urartu/Ararat to this day (a very small portion of it) and we were born as a nation in it. The Armenian Highlands, or Armenian Plateau, is synonymous to Urartu/Ararat and possibly Arrata. Armenia is surely the amalgamation of all the peoples of Urartu/Ararat/[Arrata]. I personally think that the Indo-European element in our language (which is the large majority of it) is due to heavy Hellenic and Aryan influence. The root of our language is still unknown. Which is why I believe that if we somehow discover the language spoken in Hayasa, we might solve many mysteries about our nation. I don't believe Hayasa and Hayastan being so close is simply coincidental (even less since that region became Pokr Hayk later). It's possible that through language change and evolution, Hay-asa became Hay-k, which became Hay-er.

I'd like to know what our last reference to Hayasa is, or how the kingdom ceased to exist.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

For the first time in more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are therefore obligated
to place our national interests ahead of our personal gains or aspirations.

Off topic, but Amen.