Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

[Armenian]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

I can tell you that we share essentially the same opinion. I was just irked when you claimed that Urartians were true Armenians, that is all. Geographically, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that statement though.

You still have not gotten the essence of my statements regarding Urartu.

The Araratian Federation which was known as "Urartu/Biainili" was comprised of various nations living around lake Van that eventually fused/evolved to become what we today know as Armenians/Hays. The fact remains, there are intimate mythological, linguistic, genetic and folkloric connections between modern Armenian heritage and the ancient culture of Urartu. The language spoken by official Urartu is said to have been late Hurrian, and suspected of being a dying language at the time. However, the population of Urartu is speculated to have spoken early Armenian, one that incorporated heavy Urartian/Hurrian influences into its Indo-European/Aryan structure. As the Hurrian language stopped being used, the language we today know as "Armenian" emerged. Also, the term "Hay" is linguistically connected to the Urartian/Hurrian supreme God called Khaldi.

Thus, the Urartians/Hurrians were in every sense of the word - Hay/Armenian.

Just get the notion of "Armens" somehow marching into Anatolia from the Balkans and taking over the former lands of Urartu out of your head. That story is a myth, no such thing happened. The Indo-European/Aryan language spoken by some proto-Armenian nations was indigenous to the region in question, it did not come from elsewhere.

Just one thing: What do you mean by Herodotus' history being laced with outlandish Hellenic fantasies? I've never read his story in full, just the parts that had to do with Armenians.

Just read his works in detail and you will see what I'm saying. Don't forget, you are talking about a man that lived approximately two thousand five hundred years ago. However, in the absence of other contemporary texts Herodotus is the best we got.

[karoaper]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

I'd recommend the following from Wikipedia (I don't assume that Wiki is a definitive infosourse, but a well cited Wiki page can be of great use, if only to track down more sources): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu.

I also found a link to the following paper from the Journal of American Oriental Society. I don't have a subscription, but it could be a useful source:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28198510%2F12%29105%3A4%3C597%3AHBIOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

Ok now that you have explained your view in greater detail, I can tell you that we share essentially the same opinion. I was just irked when you claimed that Urartians were true Armenians, that is all. Geographically, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that statement though.

Just one thing: What do you mean by Herodotus' history being laced with outlandish Hellenic fantasies? I've never read his story in full, just the parts that had to do with Armenians.

[Armenian]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

Armenian, I've read most of the things written in the sources you sent me (I've read some of those sites a good while ago). I have some questions/inquiries about your claim that Urartians were Armenians, but I will start with this: If Urartians were Armenians, how come they called themselves Biainili?

Just like the Uratian name "Erebuni" translates as Erevan in Armenian, just like the term "Urartu" translates as Ararat, the name "Biainili" translates as Vanetsi, in other words - from Van. Thus, the term Biainili itself does not have an ethnic/tribal value, it's a name derived from a region, in this case the region of Van.

What's more, there are many other place name associations between "Armenian" and "Baianili" as well. There are also many historiographical associations; there are many linguistic associations; there are many theological/folkloric associations. For example, according to the early Armenian historian Moses of Khoren, the Urartian king Armamu was none other than our famous patriarch named Aram, after whom the name Armen is supposedly derived from. What's more, the popular Armenian legends of "Ara the Beautiful" and and "Haik the Patriarch" vividly echo the people of Urartu's centuries long struggle against the Semitic Assyrians of the south. And although the Armenian language is "Aryan" at its root, it nevertheless is saturated by Urartian/Hurrian influences.

Besides, if you accept our people's Hurrian origins, and you accept the fact that Urartian and Hurrian may have been linguistically associated, would it be a far-fetched conclusion to assume that modern Armenians share a common ancestry with Hurrians and Urartians? The Armenian nation, as we know it today, is a union of various ancient tribes of the Armenian Highlands. Technically speaking, we are not Armen or Hay, it's not that simple. Its just that for various geopolitical reasons the terms "Hay" and "Armen" have come down to us through the ages.

In all the places they conquered, there is not (at least I've never heard of) one place out of all their inscriptions, where they call themselves Armenians.

Well, Urartu was a "Federation" of local kings that united to become an empire. Like I said earlier, their name is derived from Van. The Armenian nation per say was born out of this empire. Prior to the Urartian Federation however there were various powerful native tribes that lived within the Armenian Highlands. These tribes were not politically united under one banner. With a serious Assyrian threat emanating from the south, Urartian, or the "Araratian" Federation, become that catalyst for proto-Armenian unity.

Thus, the term "Armenia" did not exist at the time like we know it today. Although the tribe that was known as Armen (with all its name variations) were natives of the region in question, and there are many references to them in ancient texts, they, nonetheless, were not alone and they were not the most dominant group. After the Urartian collapse, the tribes of the former empire basically evolved and eventually became known as Armenians by the newly emerged Persian Empire. All the while, the natives in the region in question began collectively referring to themselves as Hay. Why these occurrences happened they way they did no one yet knows.

Nonetheless, there is whole allot we don't yet know about the time in question. The region is so old, so complicated, so much has been destroyed throughout the last several thousand years, what we have left today in terms of cultural legacy and understanding is a mere fraction of the reality that actually existed at the time.

This is even more significant when you consider that Herodotus and Xenophon distinguished between Urartians (sometimes called Alarodians) and Armenians. What are your thoughts?

This again goes back to the different tribes that lived in the region before they were transformed into a single entity we today know as Armenian/Hay. Also, I would not take Herodotus very seriously, his "history" is grossly laced with outlandish Hellenic fantasies regarding other peoples of the time.

In short, we don't know enough about the region in question because of its antiquity. We don't know for sure what the term Armen means, and the same applies to the term Hay as well. At this point in time we can only speculate. However, what we know for sure is that unlike any other nation in the region, we Armenians today carry within our cultural heritage and collective memory various fundamental remnants of several ancient nations, namely - Urartians, Hittites and Hurrians.

We Armenians need to re-look at our national heritage. Intellectually, we are stuck in the here and now. It's not as simple as we being Armen or Hay. Nations go through evolutions due to various socio-political situations. A little modern day example is Karabagh. Due to various socio-political reasons, these Armenians were known as Christian Aghvans, Azeris, Artsakhtsis and/or Karabaghtsis, and their land is officially known today as the Republic of Karabagh (NKR).

Not too long ago in the past, some called Armenians in the region - Christian Turks, and others have called us - Christian Persians. During the Soviet years, what Armenian living in Karabagh, for example, dared call him/herself Armenian? Even today, what Anatolian Armenian dares call him/herself Armenian?

For example, if the Armenian Republic gets destroyed and somehow the NKR survives, will people in the future call Armenians - Karabaghians. Another example, if Armenia and Karabagh gets destroyed and somehow the Hamshentsi Armenians emerge through the rubble and create a nation for themselves, will the world thereafter call the Armenians - Hamshenians?

Just think: Thousands of years from today, after the earth has gone through drastic changes and destruction, people begin to dig up archives from the current era and find terms for the region of the Caucasus like - Karabaghtsi, Hayastantsi, Armenian, Artsakhtsi, Spiurkahay, Hamshentsi, etc... Will the future generations assume that all these people were separate entities, especially if the found archival materials that were written in Russian, Turkish, English and Armenian languages? Have you heard the way Armenian Artsakhtsis and Zangezurtsis speak Armenian? You would be lucky if you understood a single word. Now, just image how murky things were thousands of years ago when there was no record keeping, no central government, no clearly designated borders, no scholastic system, etc...

Although some of what I just outlined above is very outlandish, it should nevertheless show you that history is not as neat and linear as we tend to think. Thus, it's all relative. History must be placed in a proper context and look at objectively. History is not simply reading events, dates and names in a chronological order. Understanding of ones past goes beyond simply reading publications. History is very dynamic and complex. Nations are ever evolving organisms. As a result, they they should not be looked upon through a limited scope. I would even venture to say that understanding one's history requires meditation as well as archival, folkloric and archeological research.

If interested, Martiros Kavukjian's publication will be helpful to you in this topic. And you should visit the following website as well if you have further questions: http://www.hayary.org/index.php?mylang=english

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

Armenian, I've read most of the things written in the sources you sent me (I've read some of those sites a good while ago). I have some questions/inquiries about your claim that Urartians were Armenians, but I will start with this: If Urartians were Armenians, how come they called themselves Biainili? In all the places they conquered, there is not (at least I've never heard of) one place out of all their inscriptions, where they call themselves Armenians. This is even more significant when you consider that Herodotus and Xenophon distinguished between Urartians (sometimes called Alarodians) and Armenians. What are your thoughts?

[Sarkis]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

Armenians aren't Aryan.

[skhara]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

I've seen an article online some years back written by an Iranian claiming that ancient Iranian texts point to the S Caucasus as the region from which "the Iranians" moved down from. I'd interested in knowing what those texts say more specifically.

[Armenian]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

I'm not pushing my theory, I'm telling you the accepted theory.

Smart one, like I said, accepted by who? And don't even try discrediting "Armenian" sources as biased while all you can provide is western derived bullkaka... In the meanwhile, you can start by reading several non-Armenian sources that corroborate Armenian claims, namely that Aryans/Indo Europeans originated within Asia Minor:

Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftB...onicle120.html

Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/langtree.html

Colin Renfrew (his old thesis): http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/

As far as I'm concerned, the only logical location where the proto Indo-European languages could have first developed is within the region of the south Caucasus and/or Asia Minor. Besides linguistic evidences put forth by Armenian and non-Armenian linguists that places the Indo-European homeland within the Armenian Highlands, several fundamental "cultural" characteristics of Indo-Europeans/Aryans were originated within the Armenia Highlands as well. It is unfortunate that people generally tend to get hung up on one aspect of this study, linguistics, and ignore the other important fields of archeology and anthropology.

It is quite obvious that human civilization and Indo-European culture first originated within Asia Minor/Caucasus - the vicinity of the historic Armenian Highlands.

Oldest theologies and folklores come from the same region in question. The earliest domestication of various animals fundamental to Indo-European culture come from the same region. Cultivations and fermentation of various staple grains and fruits come from the same region. Oldest city states/settlements on earth such as Catal Huyuk, Gobekli Tepe, Agarak, Metsamor, Shengavit, along with various others are found precisely within the same region. The Europid/Caucasian race, that which is associated with Indo-Europeans, first originated within the same region. The oldest Indo-European written records come from the same region. The oldest Indo-European cultural elements such as the war-horse, chariots, metal tools/weapons, the sacred symbol of the Swastika and various Indo-European Gods come from the same region. The oldest Aryan/Indo-European artifacts are also found within the same region.

There is nowhere else on earth that can even remotely compare to the antiquity of Asia Minor and the southern Caucasus and the cultural treasures found therein. Even the famous Sumerians more-or-less believed that life first appeared upon the Armenian Highlands.

If you want sources you may want to start with Martiros Kavoukjian's book in English titled "Armenia, Subartu And Sumer - The Indo-European Homeland And Ancient Mesopotamia." You might also want to consider reading H. Adjarian, E. Khanzadian, N. Adonst, G. Djahukian, Ghapantsian, Abrahamian. Not ot mention non-Armenians sources such as Gelb, Gamkrelide, Ivanov and T. Powell. If interested, you can read Martiros Kavoukjian's English translation: http://www.stvartanbookstore.com/ind...OD&ProdID=4609

I have written extensively regarding this topic of discussion, had you read the posts within my links you would have come across them. Nonetheless, I'm not going to waste my time anymore with someone who is a self-proclaimed "king of kings" - and as stubborn as one as well.

[Shahanshah]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

We all push our theories. However, mine is based on modern archeological, folkloric and linguistic evidences.

I'm not pushing my theory, I'm telling you the accepted theory.

You just undermined yourself by admitting this is all your point of view and not fact.

You are having a reading comprehension problem, I never claimed Armenian was an Iranic language. Yes, their stupid theories were wrong back then and their new ones are wrong now. If you want to learn about Armenian historiography I suggest you start studying Armenian sources.

Show me one scholarly source which supports your point of view? (I know for a fact that you can't)

Early Greek and Iranian is speculated to be have been related to Armenian in the distant past, hence the theorized Greco-Armeno-Aryan tongue originating in Asia Minor.

Oh really? By who? There are theories that Indo-Europeans originated in Central Europe, Central Asia, Iran, Anatolia, the Caucasus, etc...

Who are you to tell us that the ones that say the Caucasus origin is correct are right and everyone else is wrong?

Last I check, you were a nationalist, which severely undermines your stance.

Like I said we all have our theories. However, like I said instead of parroting western academia look at the evidence at hand.

What evidence? An outdated language tree and a theory?

There are at least half a dozen speculated locations for the proto Indo-European homeland. The most logical of them all, the one with real weight behind it, is Asia Minor - Armenian Highlands. I have even seen quite a few Iranian nationalists claiming that proto-Iranians originated in Caucasia/Asia Minor.

Why is it that the most logic theory is the one that has the origin at the Armenian highlands?

Also, has it ever occurred to you that maybe Armenians are an people who settled in the Caucasus/Anatolia but did not originate there?

Also, there are Iranian nationalists who claim that Aryans actually originated from Iran and never migrated...

They are exactly as you are, nationalists.

I'll try this again. All Indo Europeans are distant descendants of the Armenian Highlands, not Armenians per say. My evidence is very modern.

What evidence?

However, since you are a byproduct of Zionist/Globalist sponsored Western education you have not been exposed to it.

Wait, the West is so anti-Armenian that they dont want anyone to know that everyone has an Armenian origin?

For your information, the Turkish "Sun Theory" is based, in part, upon the historical values/evidences of the aboriginal populations of Asia Minor, thus they are indirectly accurate - to a certain degree. Basically, they have taken the rich heritage of the ancient populations of the Armenian Highlands and twisted them into Turkic crap.

You are sounding exactly like Turkish revisionists who say that everyone is descendent's of Turks. I cant believe you dont see the connection here.

This may shock to you, but I agree. The populations of the region are more-or-less natives of the region in question. Turks for instance, depending on the region where they live, can be related to Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, Mongols or various Caucasians peoples including Armenian. However, it may also come as a shock to you that the so-called "genetic studies" being done today is nothing but "voodoo" science driven by geopolitical agendas. Such types of testing can be easily manipulated to get whatever results the "sponsors" of the test desire. As such, I have seen studies that claim Russians are part Mongols, Greeks are part Africans and Italians are part Semites. I have also seen studies that claim they all are Europeans. There are studies that claim J-e-ws are related to peoples of Asia Minor, while other studies about J-e-ws claim that they are natives of Palestine, while other studies claim they are Europeans. And there are "studies" that prove that you are related to fish and of course monkeys.

In short, these studies are agenda driven, thus they often times contradict each other.

So, take that into consideration next time you refer to a topic you don't know much about. And I'll you what, if you want to continue discussing this subject with me, first read all the materials I have compiled in the following thread: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Armenian_...?showtopic=199

Read it all and then let's discuss what scientific evidences you have that may back up what you are claiming.

OK, king-of-kings?

I know more about this subject than you do, trust me. By the way, your outdated, biased, un-scholarly sources will not win you any debate against me buddy.

Lets see, your logic is that everyone is anti-Armenian, therefore they try to suppress the information that everyone has an Armenian origin.

The genetic studies that disprove you are manipulated by people with agenda's.

The modern majority accepted theories are wrong...

lets see, in what way do you not sound like a historical revisionist pan Turk?

You are what you criticize Armenian, I cant believe you dont see this. You are the Armenian version of a nationalist Turk.

[Armenian]

Re: Aryan Roots Save Armenians from Nazi Extermination

My point is that our culture doesn't have to be the oldest or the most advanced one for us to love it and to defend it. Whether Armenians have been around for 10,000 years or just 3,000, I love our history and culture all the same.

I agree. All peoples love their respective cultures regardless of age or other trivial matters. However, we Armenians do have the oldest continuous national heritage on earth. This in essence makes us who we are. And our Armenian homeland is the cradle of human civilization, the primordial source of the Caucasian race (Europid race) and birthplace of Indo-European tribes.

I did not claim to know everything, or that what I said is the absolute truth, I will read your sources when I have time and I will get back to you.

Just realize that you have been looking at our national historiography and culture, that which you claim to be very proud of, through a western/foreign lens. As a result, you are not intimately familiar with the real essence of what your national heritage is all about.