Urartian proto Armenian problem

[Artashes]

Re: Urartian proto Armenian problem

The difficulty in tracking our ancestry is compounded in this manner ... Who are you tracking ? The High from the land of Hay ? Or Armen from not of this world ?
Petrosyan assumes we are an indo European people. Other scholars as well. Completely misleading.
You need to track them both. One is a direct descendent of Adam & Eve, the other has no relationship to man until the mingling of the two.
One needs to put --- ALL --- the factors in the equation or it's not going to come out with a true depiction.

[DieHard69]

Re: Urartian proto Armenian problem

I like your opinion, and a way of telling history and I respect it but please be an open mind and let us talk about a more Scientific perceptive.

so how did Armenians started off?

Well genetics tell us the first migration of Agriculturist's in 5000 BC which in lessor telling the Hurrians/Urartians Arrived.

Because they were Agriculturists they were much more advanced or had some Advancements earlier compared to many of the People living in the Caucasus Today, with some impressive advancements like grapes, whine, and Metsamor Castle and the Armenian Stonehenge but the people of Armenia were part of the south Caucasian Shulaveri-Shomu culture but later Succeeded to Leyla-Tepe culture, Trialeti culture and the largest, the Kura Araxes culture.

The Kura Araxes culture is the ultimate predecessor and the birth of the Armenian people, although they were a trans Caucasian culture they were strictly Armenian many cultures existed before the Kura Araxes culture like the ones I mentioned above, in fact Kura Araxes culture could potentially took over these cultures and conquered them.
This is disturbing but there is strong reports of it happening and this was the Hurrians/Urartian's, At Arslantepe, Turkey, around 3000 BCE, there was widespread burning and destruction, after which Kura-Araxes pottery appeared in the area. On a brighter side, a second migration came to the Armenian Highlands it was the Indo Europeans.

The Indo European Arrival was the biggest change in the Kura Araxes culture. Now we had Hurrian/Urartian and proto Armenians living in the Armenian highland, we have Genetic, Archaeological, and surprisingly linguistic evidence that the first Armenian culture was evident to exist in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BC, and what happened at the time, Hayk and Bell.

Although Nimrod is our closest Babylonian king to be Bell I doubt he is the evil king who tried to hurt us poor Armenians, its most likely a Urartian warlord or King trying to dominate the Armenian highland but failed which resulted to a massive divide between the Armenian people, Urartians, Hurrians, proto Armenians, and significant others divided the people for about 500 years.

There was no culture reported in 2000-1600 BC but the first kingdoms and city states and fortress's emerged like Haykaberd and were much more advanced compared to Georgia and Azerbaijan (lets face it, there not Turks) Hayasa-Azzi, later Lesser Armenia, Arme shupria, later the descendants of Sasounsi's but the mightiest Nair tribal union.
Although many states fought fiercely against the Assyrians and Hittites Hayasa fell but Arme shupria lived on until there destruction from The kingdom of Van.

As more and more Armenian states fell into vassals or no longer mentioned in manuscripts by the rising empires of Hittites and Assyrians one state stood strong, the last Armenian state to fight, The kingdom of Van. The Nairi Tribal union evolved into Urartu, though Urartu could potentially be the end of the Hurrian culture and a rise of a Unified language, Armenian, Urartian was a small language only found in the south of lake van and a majority of the population hated the Urartians, but that never stopped unification, even if many Armenian cultures languages led to there destruction because of Urartu's forced migrations which led to a strong unification which we needed for a long time, it soon led to us Armenians today regardless if this theory has flaws it is the best one to explain someone scientifically without having a Phrygian problem though I do believe Armenian was part of a Subgroup related to the Phrygians.

[DieHard69]

Re: Urartian proto Armenian problem

But regardless I still believe in the legends even if It has no scientific reason to be real as there a part of our culture.

[Artashes]

Re: Urartian proto Armenian problem

Yes, I've read that "scientific" line before. Disagree completely.
All my research into " who " are Armenians, tracks man. I track on two lines. (1) how did Noah speak? (2) from whose loins did we come from?. Both lines go back to a man named Noah. THATS who I call my original ancestors. Noah is a direct descendent of Adam. That is the story of man. The Hayr story is the story of man. That is my ancestors that I am tracking.
Both before the flood and after the flood, we (mankind) had "extraterrestrial" visitations. This aspect of our experience (is) an addition to the story of man (us).
We are not really talking to one another.
Also the sequencing of events in your post does not correspond with mine. Urartu is not mentioned at 7,000 years so by any works. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't recall that by several thousand years?.
Hittites are us--- indo Europe (fallen). How did they pro create?? No women, only men!!! After their fall, they "stole many woman. From who? Who lived in that area? Fast forward to the Hittites demise --- they had already united with us insofar as our men could marry their daughters and vica versa. When they disappear, all remaining become part of our gene pool. All off world + human revert to human. Most of the reuniting is human back to human + off worldwide input.
Your post reflects the attempt (mostly successful) to illimitable the strange factors so prevalent in archeological findings by the "scientific " (holy, holy) community.
The story of man is not this flatline, leanear portrayal this (GRANT) salivating group who seeks prestige and honor are painting. This is a story for the masses who don't give a fk anyway to consume in their feeble attempt to care for themselves.
I start from Adam. You start from (no clue) and you rely on archeological finds and various men's interpretations..
You need someone to tell you they found evidence of us.
I already knew that.
Before the flood things weren't right. But not much is known of the "societal" conduct. After the flood is our story. That's what I track. The story of man from Noah. The off world injection is both surprising and confusing. That is now part of the story of man.
And it's ongoing, as I write.