Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

[SevSpitak]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

A large basis for this old hypothesis of Hurro-Urartian coming from the Caucasus were based on those outdated linguistic conclusions. ... That's why I'm studying this stuff personally.

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 You make me realize that some of my info is based on outdated theories (although the book "Peoples of Ararat" was released in 2009).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 Some of them may be based on inaccurate or outdated theories/discoveries (which is what I want to correct).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?

[jgk3]

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?

The Urartian pillared halls predate those from Persia, so it has been proposed that those Urartu halls could be the stylistic origin of the later Persian hypostyle audience halls like those at Persepolis (which, in turn, predated and probably partly inspired the Greek temple form).

bell, when we say it was politically a federation, you're right that this is debatable according to the evidence you're mentioning. But out conception has it that Urartians were the ruling class over diverse tribes we know next to nothing about. Do you think it's possible that the Urartians were able (or even tried) to assimilate these tribes into some state sponsored mono-ethnic group?

Also, good points ArmSurvival, I thank you for participating in this thread.

SevSpitak, Hurrian is not an Aryan/Indo-European language. I've seen books that claim they were (Kavoukjian), which shows how little they understand about how it fits into the grand scheme of things. Armenian is most certainly not some offshoot of Hurrian, the non-Indo-European content in Armenian is negligible, which is what the very speculative soviet scholarship from the 80s on our language did not understand at all. The Indo-European element in our language is not some kind of influence form the other groups, Armenian is its own subgroup, it inherits its Indo-European core directly from the ancestor it shares with all the other Indo-European languages. The peculiar thing with Classical Armenian is that during the Parthian period, it adopted 80% of its vocabulary from Iranian. Proto-Armenian most certainly had a pure core of non-borrowed Indo-European features, and perhaps by reconstructing this proto-Armenian by comparing Classical Armenian with all the 100+ other dialects we have attested (despite their rather modern period), we will retrieve some fragments of this pure Indo-European heritage which were lost in Classical Armenian due to Iranian influence, but not in the ancient vulgar dialects which are the true genetic ancestors of our modern dialects. But my strongest warning is directed against looking towards Non-Indo-European languages in order to "understand" Armenian's core.

What evidence is there for saying that the Hurrians came from the Caucasus, I am quite skeptical of this because the Caucasian languages do not seem to exhibit a genetic relationship to Hurro-Urartian, another conception which did not exist 30 years ago but does today because of all the work we've done on Hurro-Urartian and the Caucasian languages since that period. A large basis for this old hypothesis of Hurro-Urartian coming from the Caucasus were based on those outdated linguistic conclusions.

One idea though that I liked from your proposals was that Urartu was a state created in opposition to Assyria by some kind of Hurrian league, perhaps from Mitanni, but the relationship between Urartian, Hurrian and Royal Mitanni culture is quite illusive to me. I would like to know more about this.

I'm not fond with the Sumerian Arrata/Ararat/Urartu hypothesis which Kavoukjian advances. It is a matter I need to test myself, but first I will need a thorough knowledge of Near Eastern languages based on our more updated understanding of them. Kavoukjian bases his points almost entirely on the period of Gelb, who was an early translator of these languages, but his understanding of them is quite dated and much work has been done since his time and his conclusions are no longer the standard we use today in the field. It's about time we Armenians approach these questions using the updated literature of today, and not from 30 years ago. That's why I'm studying this stuff personally.

And Eddo, thanks for your encouragement.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

I didn't say the peoples of Urartu weren't culturally united, I simply said the political organization was by nature a federation. Armenian churches throughout the Bagratuni domains also displayed similar architecture to one another, but we know that it was more or less a federation of several Armenian royal houses, with each different local ruler deriving his power from the Bagratunis. This is not much different than the political system during the Urartian era, in which you had the Urartian heartlands directly administered by the ruling dynasty, then the territories designated as provinces directly under central authority but which still retained a degree of independence, and then independent kingdoms/principalities which were allied to Urartu for military, economic, or political reasons. This is essentially the same type of political organization as every independent Armenian dynasty, all the way up to the fall of the Bagratunis.

Speaking of pillared halls, I have heard people claim the Urartian halls were early prototypes of later Median and Achaemenid royal halls (unless that same style of halls existed in the 2nd millenium B.C. outside of Urartu...)

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?

The Urartian pillared halls predate those from Persia, so it has been proposed that those Urartu halls could be the stylistic origin of the later Persian hypostyle audience halls like those at Persepolis (which, in turn, predated and probably partly inspired the Greek temple form).

[Eddo211]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

This is such a cool thread.

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

I know, where is he hiding? He is such a valuable member.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

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.

I didn't say the peoples of Urartu weren't culturally united, I simply said the political organization was by nature a federation. Armenian churches throughout the Bagratuni domains also displayed similar architecture to one another, but we know that it was more or less a federation of several Armenian royal houses, with each different local ruler deriving his power from the Bagratunis. This is not much different than the political system during the Urartian era, in which you had the Urartian heartlands directly administered by the ruling dynasty, then the territories designated as provinces directly under central authority but which still retained a degree of independence, and then independent kingdoms/principalities which were allied to Urartu for military, economic, or political reasons. This is essentially the same type of political organization as every independent Armenian dynasty, all the way up to the fall of the Bagratunis.

Speaking of pillared halls, I have heard people claim the Urartian halls were early prototypes of later Median and Achaemenid royal halls (unless that same style of halls existed in the 2nd millenium B.C. outside of Urartu...)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.