Hayasa's Relation in Hayastan's History

[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...)

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.