Origins of the Armenian peoples [Archive]

Anonymouse

11-05-2003, 02:04 PM

Well lets see there are several theories of Armenian ethnogenesis.

There is the Armenian epic detailed my Movses Khorenatis of the legend of Hayk and Bel, in which Hayk fought Bel and protected the Armenian family and identity, a small people resisting a giant tyrant. Hayk is seen as the name giver of Armenians, who call themselves "Hay", Bel, or Baal is the Assyrian god, and later attributed to the Babylonians. This epic itself is what has permeated the Armenian cultural consciousness of a small people resisting the the giant tyrants. Hayk was seen as a descendent of Noah from the Bible and his Ark which is said to be on Ararat. It is interesting to note that many of the genologies described by Movses were indeed correct which then leaves in my mind, how much more accurate can the epic be? Is there any more truth to it? The epic is indeed the most interesting to me at least.

Then there is the theory in which Armenians were part of the Indo-European migrations who settled in what is now called the Armenian plateau. First attributed to Herodotus, he claimed that the Armenians came from Thrace, along with the Phrygians, and the Armenians spoke a similar language. Those that moved most eastward eventually became the Armenans.

Of course there is much contention on the origin of the term "Hay". Some say it was acquired by Armenians as they traveled through Asia Minor via the Hittite Empire, and the term "Hay" is really another term they adopted from the word Hittite, in Greek, Hati-yos, and it is said that the "t" is dropped.

Of course the first reference to "Armenians" comes to us under Darius I of the Achaemenian Empire in the form of "Armina" inscribed on the Behistun rock around 520 B.C.

The Assyrians referred to that entire regions as Urartu or Urashti, along with many variations. Some say that Armenians as they migrated towards present day Armenian plateau adopted many forms, customs, and names from the people they interacted with such as the Hittites, but mainly Urartu. That names such as Ararat, or Aram ( Urartian King known as Arame or Aramu ) are among us today show bear mark on the influence.

To put it in a nutshell, the "classical" hypothesis, states that Armenians migrated from Thrace, ala Herodotus, and adopted and adapted themselves to many customs of their neighboring peoples, namely Urartu, as is evident from the study of linguistics. So from Hati yos the Armenian word Hay is said to have developed.

The Armenian epic contends differently as Hayk is the name giver of Armenians. The current "revisionist" hypothesis is that the Armenians have always been native to that region, and as evidence scholars point to the region in the Armenian plateau known as Hayasa, from which Armenians adotped their name Hay. They contend that Armenians have always been native to that region. Basing their theory on not only linguistics, but also archaeology, they suggest that certain agricultural techniques were first developed in Armenia then spread from there. There is a whole school of revisionist liguistic and archaeological data on the theory that Armenians were in fact native to that region

However Urartean influence cannot be denied. In the case of the Armenian artsiv was a totemic animal of the Urartean Arstrunis. In the case of Ararat, which the Assyrians I believed referred to the Urartians. Ararat, Urartu, bear linguistic similarities, or the establishment of Erebuni, in what is no Erevan or Yerevan. Armenians place names such as Van, from the Urartian Baina, or Tosp from the Urartian Tushpa, or Erevan from Erebuni, and Garni from Giarniani, all bear mark to the influence and interaction.

That is pretty much the sum and substance of the basics of Armenian ethnogenesis.

jahannam

11-06-2003, 03:01 PM

interesting read...

disksoleil

11-06-2003, 08:57 PM

I have heard once that after Noah's arc landed on top of mount Ararat, people were searching for places to settle and there was someone called Hayk, who was the one to set up a tribe, which later was called Armenians?

I heard this from an Armenian in Turkey.

Anonymouse

11-15-2003, 02:53 PM

Yes, something like that.

dtox

11-16-2003, 12:11 AM

LOL, how come some people hate the Turks, and some people don't? It's kind of odd, seeing as what they did to our race.

anileve

11-19-2003, 12:44 PM

Xisuthros was the hero of the Armenian Flood legend, recorded by Berosus, and his ark came to rest on Mount Ararat.

Anonymouse

11-25-2003, 12:16 PM

That's very intruiiiging!

I know of a similar story of a guy named Noah with the same xxxx!

Could it be?

jahannam

11-25-2003, 02:03 PM

hahahhaah
you know anileve!
she thought it sounds more "sophisticated" if it's "XISUTHROS"???
or "berosus" ...
anyway...moving on...

Anonymouse

11-25-2003, 04:33 PM

Well, well, well, aren't you the intelligent one!

TigranJamharian

11-25-2003, 04:40 PM

And the word Armenian comes from Armen Hayk's son. can we believe in stories for once and ignore the fact that the world is so mundane and boring and there is no charm. Its much more romantic than thousands of years of assimilation .

Shahumyan

11-28-2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by dtox LOL, how come some people hate the Turks, and some people don't? It's kind of odd, seeing as what they did to our race.

Only the most backward elements hate the turks. What is the logical explaination to hate turks of 2day? How can they be blamed for being brainwashed by their ruling class?

The only ones to hate are those who purposely go out to falsify history and are on the pay package of the turkish govt, these so called scholars are who we should hate and critisize, not the entire turkish population

by hating turks we polarise them away from us, by doing so they wont accept what happened in 1915, which is not what we want. We want justice to be done, and that can only be brought about by mature discussion and acceptance.

jahannam

12-02-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Shahumyan

by hating turks we polarise them away from us, by doing so they wont accept what happened in 1915, which is not what we want. We want justice to be done, and that can only be brought about by mature discussion and acceptance.

I'd hate to be promoting "hatred" here
but is it me? or are you suggesting turks WILL accept what happened in 1915 if we "loved" them???
can I get the logic behind that? if there's any?
and ummm the last time I checked, you CAN have mature discussion with people you don't necessarily like...
cheers.

Anonymouse

12-02-2003, 06:28 PM

But perhaps a mature discussion might actually lead them to be critical of their own viewpoint and hence win them to your side, instead of casting them off.

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well lets see there are several theories of Armenian ethnogenesis.

There is the Armenian epic detailed my Movses Khorenatis of the legend of Hayk and Bel, in which Hayk fought Bel and protected the Armenian family and identity, a small people resisting a giant tyrant. Hayk is seen as the name giver of Armenians, who call themselves "Hay", Bel, or Baal is the Assyrian god, and later attributed to the Babylonians. This epic itself is what has permeated the Armenian cultural consciousness of a small people resisting the the giant tyrants. Hayk was seen as a descendent of Noah from the Bible and his Ark which is said to be on Ararat. It is interesting to note that many of the genologies described by Movses were indeed correct which then leaves in my mind, how much more accurate can the epic be? Is there any more truth to it? The epic is indeed the most interesting to me at least.

Then there is the theory in which Armenians were part of the Indo-European migrations who settled in what is now called the Armenian plateau. First attributed to Herodotus, he claimed that the Armenians came from Thrace, along with the Phrygians, and the Armenians spoke a similar language. Those that moved most eastward eventually became the Armenans.

Of course there is much contention on the origin of the term "Hay". Some say it was acquired by Armenians as they traveled through Asia Minor via the Hittite Empire, and the term "Hay" is really another term they adopted from the word Hittite, in Greek, Hati-yos, and it is said that the "t" is dropped.

Of course the first reference to "Armenians" comes to us under Darius I of the Achaemenian Empire in the form of "Armina" inscribed on the Behistun rock around 520 B.C.

The Assyrians referred to that entire regions as Urartu or Urashti, along with many variations. Some say that Armenians as they migrated towards present day Armenian plateau adopted many forms, customs, and names from the people they interacted with such as the Hittites, but mainly Urartu. That names such as Ararat, or Aram ( Urartian King known as Arame or Aramu ) are among us today show bear mark on the influence.

To put it in a nutshell, the "classical" hypothesis, states that Armenians migrated from Thrace, ala Herodotus, and adopted and adapted themselves to many customs of their neighboring peoples, namely Urartu, as is evident from the study of linguistics. So from Hati yos the Armenian word Hay is said to have developed.

The Armenian epic contends differently as Hayk is the name giver of Armenians. The current "revisionist" hypothesis is that the Armenians have always been native to that region, and as evidence scholars point to the region in the Armenian plateau known as Hayasa, from which Armenians adotped their name Hay. They contend that Armenians have always been native to that region. Basing their theory on not only linguistics, but also archaeology, they suggest that certain agricultural techniques were first developed in Armenia then spread from there. There is a whole school of revisionist liguistic and archaeological data on the theory that Armenians were in fact native to that region

However Urartean influence cannot be denied. In the case of the Armenian artsiv was a totemic animal of the Urartean Arstrunis. In the case of Ararat, which the Assyrians I believed referred to the Urartians. Ararat, Urartu, bear linguistic similarities, or the establishment of Erebuni, in what is no Erevan or Yerevan. Armenians place names such as Van, from the Urartian Baina, or Tosp from the Urartian Tushpa, or Erevan from Erebuni, and Garni from Giarniani, all bear mark to the influence and interaction.

That is pretty much the sum and substance of the basics of Armenian ethnogenesis.

Herod. was a biased simpleton whom even in his fact he said he was not sure and surely flawed himself. He literally ADMITS that. However, yes we realize LATER ON there was influence but see your theisis is unclear there because if you RIGHT NOW go read Assyrian history like RIGHT NOW it says NOTHING of which you ve stated about Urartu there. IT doesnt even say anything close to what they called that region above that place to the indigenous people. Sorry to burst your bubble I was just relying on physical evidence in the ruins found as opposed to your ideological interpretations.

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by Anonymouse But perhaps a mature discussion might actually lead them to be critical of their own viewpoint and hence win them to your side, instead of casting them off.
This shall sum it up for you. I rely and request you to fairly match the dates up with your historical facts one by one. Here is the Assyrian Language tracings to have been found in an article.

Assyrians have used two languages throughout their history: ancient Assyrian (Akkadian)THAT IS THE CITY, and Modern Assyrian (neo-syriac). Akkadian was written with the cuneiform writing system, on clay tablets, and was in use from the beginning to about 750 B.C.. By 750 B.C., a new way of writing, on parchment, leather, or papyrus, was developed, and the people who brought this method of writing with them, the Arameans, would eventually see their language, Aramaic, supplant Ancient Assyrian because of the technological breakthrough in writing. Aramaic was made the second official language of the Assyrian empire in 752 B.C. Although Assyrians switched to Aramaic, it was not wholesale transplantation. The brand of Aramaic that Assyrians spoke was, and is, heavily infused with Akkadian words, so much so that scholars refer to it as

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 01:40 AM

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 01:54 AM

Observe for yourself. I urge you to really read carefully as to WHY or WHOM the Aramai people first were as well as the dates of these significant pieces of ancient old history.

The Uranian Empire once controlled the two nations that now make up Armania, Aramai (air-a-may) and Cormyr (core-me-yer). As the arians (people of Aramai) defeated the Uranian empire and drove them north from their lands. They continued to route the Uranians through what was once Cormyr ‘freeing’ that nation as well. However the aramai people quickly established their king as the ruler of the Cormyr lands. The Uranian Empire was defeated and this once great empire crumbled and became extinct. However Armania continued to expand, north into Kellsor and east into what is now Lyone. This kingdom fluctuated in size then were finally pushed south from Kellsor. The tensions between Lyone and Armania continued for many years to follow, but eventually Lyone drove the Armanians mostly from their lands. Although Armania was eventually driven back from the countries it occupied during it’s expansion, Cormyr is still part of Armania and has little to no rebellion within this former country.

http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/first_world/armania.html

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 02:02 AM

That was what had occurred. I am simply taking your little incomplete pieces of information and elaborating from there so we have a CLEAR idea (if Aramai was the first language according to records) as to WHOM or WHAT that language was or is to call it "influential" or not. Notice how I am taking FACTS nothing of this is my opinion. Meanwhile the rest of your borrow corrupt opinions. Anyway please proceed. Feel free to click on the sources to re-check if you are somewhat saying or doubting my prose.

During Roman rule, the Phoenician language died out and was replaced by Aramai.Aramai

http://csrd.lau.edu.lb/Publications/StudentReports/History%20of%20Lebanon.htm

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 03:01 AM

Put two and two together if you mistrust my information. Full proof that Armenians had tribes who were ethnically still ARMENIAN however each leader/ruler wanted their own prestige. Read for yourselves please.

One of the greatest legacies in the proud history of the Armenia nation is the Sumerian legacy. Sumerians were among the earliest Armenian settlers of subsequently Northern and later on Southern Mesopotamia. The Armen-Sumerian migration took place between the VI th and IV th millenniums B.C. The Armenians of Sumer established the first civilization in great cities such as Ar (Ur) and Uruk. The Armeno-Sumerian contribution to the world civilization is utmost important. The Sumerians among many other things invented world's first alphabet, which quickly spread to other lands and peoples. The Sumerians were also the ones who created the wheel and the chariot (the worlds oldest carts or pulling wagons were unearthed in the town of Lchashen in the Sevan basin of Armenia - the carts have remarkably been relatively well preserved and date back to 1800 B.C! making them the oldest in its kind ever discovered. which took the mobility and speedy transport to previously unequaled level. The Sumerians had a complex and advanced socio-economic culture that was not matched for centuries and even millenniums to come. The "Armenoid" Sumerians built monumental and colossal temples or ziggurats which symbolized the power and the glory of the Sumerian culture. The Sumerians in their quest for the best architectural types invented the arch, which became the focal point of traditional Armenian architecture for millenniums to come.

http://www.armenianhighland.com/architecture/chronicle411.html

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 03:06 AM

What crucial evidence I have to prove Anonymouse wrong. Simply skim the websites if it is FACTS you wish to seek and you will see that my legitamate information clearly states the dates accurately identifying in correspondence with with events Anonymouse listed. All of his data is mismatched. Keep in mind this is all B.C.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF URARTU. The Urartians were related to the Hurrians( that is Armenians which I will prove later) and moved into the region sometime in the second millennium. In the time of Shalmeneser I (1275–1246), the region was divided into a number of small kingdoms and subsequently became tributary to the Assyrians. The Aramean invasions of the 11th century drove the Assyrians back to their homeland (See 1078–977), and at some point afterward the kingdom of Urartu was established around Lake Van, with its capital at Tushpa.
THE KINGDOM OF URARTU (VAN). Shalmeneser III defeated the first known king of Urartu, Aramu in 856. Sarduri I (c. 834) and Ishpuini (c. 822) also fought the Assyrians. Menua (c. 800) increased Urartian power, occupying the entire Armenian highland area, and built the walls and aqueduct of Tushpa. Argishti I (786–764) built the city of Erebuni as a royal capital. Sarduri II (764–735) reorganized the army along Assyrian lines and extended Urartian power as far as northern Syria. In 743, however, Tiglath-Pileser III defeated the Urartians and reestablished Assyrian control over north Syria. The Assyrians attacked Urartu itself in 735, annexed Urmia, and besieged Tushpa (unsuccessfully). In 714 Sargon II launched a carefully planned attack against Rusa I (735–714) and defeated the Urartian army. Although defeated by marauding Cimmerians in 707, Argishti II (714–685) kept the Assyrians at bay and built a number of new fortresses and irrigation works. Such projects were continued by his son Rusa II (685–645), who completed a new capital Rusahinili (Toprakkale). After the death of Rusa II, the Urartian kingdom declined. Sometime after 584, the Medes defeated King Rusa IV and destroyed Rusahinili.

Nimrod

12-25-2003, 03:15 AM

I will now state specifically what our Armenian "ethnicity s tribes" are comprised of as far as these titles are concerned as well as the names of them. Keep in mind as to HOW they are transformed and WHY.

2000-1800 BC Sumerian clay tablets note migrating peoples from the West who lived with the tribes on the Armenian Plateau. These peoples would have been the migrating Indo-Europeans (including the war-like Hittites), for tablets record such expressions as "we came, we conquered and we captured" as their calling cards.

The second wave of Indo-European migration had begun, this time coming full circle back to the Armenian plateau. Thousands of years of development created distinct dialects and physical attributes, which further influenced the "mother tribes" in Armenia

(As one can see these tribes are all US as in ARMENIANS, glad we established that let's move on.)

There is a clay tablet written by the Hittites about 2000 BC (discovered in an excavation of the Hittite capital Hatusas--or Boghazkeui-- in N. Central Turkey), which first mentions a tribe of people called Haius, and said they were from the country of Haiassa-Aza. This was a predominant tribe in the region, vassals of the Hittite kingdom, and said to be a distinct Indo-European tribe that introduced its language and customs to neighboring tribes. The Haius were often in rebellion with the Hittites, and they were influential in spreading their culture eastwards, to the peoples on the Armenian plateau. In addition, the architectural and cultural influences of the Hittites were filtered into the region through Haiassa-Aza.

(now keep in mind this was alllllll wayyyyyyy before Assyrian power or Persian power et all Islamic reign.)

The combination of migrating with native Indo-Europeans was bound to create more than a little cross-fertilization of people, language and ideas, and within the next 1000 years several regional kingdoms using an Indo-European language emerged.

Tribes (or kingdoms, as they were called in historical accounts) in the area included the Mitanni (Southwest of Lake Van and by Lake Sevan), the Hurrian (Sevan), the Manah (around Lake Urmia) and the Diaukhi (around present day Erzurum).

Mitanni and Hurrian tribes were dominant on the Armenian Plateau until the mid 2nd millennium BC. Kurgans (burial mounds) from the 17th-16th centuries BC have been excavated near Vanadzor uncovering chased gold and silver cups and bronze weapons. Those from the following period (15th-14th cc. BC) at L'chashen and in a cemetery at Artik held Mitannian cylinder seals dating from the final phase of the Mitannian kingdom. After the destruction of Mitanni by the Hittites at the turn of the 15th-14th cc. BC, the tribes on the Armenian plateau were nominally under the control of the Hittites, which had begun to expand into Northern Syria. By the time the Hittite kingdom fell around 1200 BC, the ancestral Armenian tribes had forged powerful alliances and were considered a challenge to the northward expansion of the Assyrians, who became the primary power after the fall of Mitanni.

Another migration of Indo-Europeans began in the 12th c BC, at the time of the Trojan War. It concerns the eviction of Thraco-Phrygian tribes (called "foreign settlers") from their native lands by "the People of the Sea" (i.e. early Greeks, Minoans or Mycanaeans). The Thraco-Phrygian moved through the Euphrates into the Armenian Plateau. First inhabiting the land immediately East of the Trojan kingdom in Asia Minor, the Thraco-Phrygians settled on the Western edges of the Armenian plateau and intermingled with the Haiassa-Aza, further developing Indo-European language, culture and physical features.

One of these people's were the forebears of the Urartians, who spoke a distinct language, perhaps borrowed from Assyria and Babylon, but more likely from the Hittites or later Thraco-Phrygian tribes escaping the war at Troy.

Kept up with all this? If you have, then you begin to understand why it has been so hard to trace Armenia’s lineage in the region, and how--with all these tribes inhabiting the same land, more than a little cross-pollination occurred, creating a race of tribes which were all culturally related, sharing language and ethnic roots among them.

And frankly, even the Egyptians and Assyrians were pollinating like bees, being made up of several ethnic groups themselves. Cousins, the tribes in Armenia were still rivals for land and mineral resources, and a few rose to prominence. One of these tribes succeeded in uniting or conquering surrounding city-states into a single empire, which rivaled even the Assyrians and Hittites for power. They were called the Nairi and Urartians by the Assyrians. Let’s put this into perspective and mark ancestral Armenians continuously inhabiting the Armenian Plateau before and throughout the rise and fall of the Old and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt, the entire history of Minoan and Mycanaean cultures (ca 2200-1400 BC), the Indus civilization in present day Pakistan (ca. 2500-1500 BC), the first semi-mythical Hsia (ca 2000-1523 BC) and most of the Shang (1766-1027 BC) Dynasties in China. Greece and Rome are by now a gleam in historians' eyes

(there you have it folks all in a nutshell from the beginning to the end for you so start analyzing now.)

http://www.calstatela.edu/orgs/asa/main/ArmoHeritage/EarlyAges/earlyKingdoms.html

Anonymouse

12-25-2003, 03:56 PM

You know I fail to see what youre rambling here is about, but to try to assert that "Armenians" have always had a fixed identity can claim descent upon on common ancestry, holds no bearing, since the people and definition of "Armenian" has changed over time.

I am tired of people trying to create history to conform to the present, where there wasn't any. As far as we know, the first "Armenian" dynasty we can claim as "Armenian" are the Orontids. Beyond that all things are just a guess so stop trying to appeal to imaginations and what ifs.

Now you can copy and paste websites all you want, but linguists will tell you that Urartians spoke a Caucasian language, and it differed from Armenian. Armenians borrowed many words from Urartians, and it is evident today, such as Aram, Ararat, Erebuni. In fact the names of the many Nakharar houses with the "uni" sounding can be traced back to Urartu.

You just can't seem to stomach the fact that "Armenians" aren't this "great race" that has stayed intact for millenias and can claim common ancestry from one fixed place. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Anonymouse

12-25-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod Put two and two together if you mistrust my information. Full proof that Armenians had tribes who were ethnically still ARMENIAN however each leader/ruler wanted their own prestige. Read for yourselves please.

One of the greatest legacies in the proud history of the Armenia nation is the Sumerian legacy. Sumerians were among the earliest Armenian settlers of subsequently Northern and later on Southern Mesopotamia. The Armen-Sumerian migration took place between the VI th and IV th millenniums B.C. The Armenians of Sumer established the first civilization in great cities such as Ar (Ur) and Uruk. The Armeno-Sumerian contribution to the world civilization is utmost important. The Sumerians among many other things invented world's first alphabet, which quickly spread to other lands and peoples. The Sumerians were also the ones who created the wheel and the chariot (the worlds oldest carts or pulling wagons were unearthed in the town of Lchashen in the Sevan basin of Armenia - the carts have remarkably been relatively well preserved and date back to 1800 B.C! making them the oldest in its kind ever discovered. which took the mobility and speedy transport to previously unequaled level. The Sumerians had a complex and advanced socio-economic culture that was not matched for centuries and even millenniums to come. The "Armenoid" Sumerians built monumental and colossal temples or ziggurats which symbolized the power and the glory of the Sumerian culture. The Sumerians in their quest for the best architectural types invented the arch, which became the focal point of traditional Armenian architecture for millenniums to come.

http://www.armenianhighland.com/architecture/chronicle411.html

I was simply laffing at this. As if its not enough to create history in the Caucasus, we now somehow manage to tie in Armenians to Sumerians? And what evidence is offered in the link aside from unsubstantited assertions? Nothing.

Unsubstantiated assertions are simply unsubstantiated assertions. Maybe you should be a bit more objective and scholarly before coming to a discussion about history. You clearly came with the intent to rile things up accusing everyone else of having "opinions" while you alone carried the torch of the "facts". Listen, don't be immature here, if you are going to discuss, be objective and don't have any bias towards information or people that contradict what you say or believe.

Nimrod

12-30-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Anonymouse I was simply laffing at this. As if its not enough to create history in the Caucasus, we now somehow manage to tie in Armenians to Sumerians? And what evidence is offered in the link aside from unsubstantited assertions? Nothing.

Unsubstantiated assertions are simply unsubstantiated assertions. Maybe you should be a bit more objective and scholarly before coming to a discussion about history. You clearly came with the intent to rile things up accusing everyone else of having "opinions" while you alone carried the torch of the "facts". Listen, don't be immature here, if you are going to discuss, be objective and don't have any bias towards information or people that contradict what you say or believe.

If you are "laffing" at it then I guess from your Atheistic view everything there is comedic. You need to read from a non-secular view and read carefully because there is evidence. Sumerians are just people long back way before Egypt Assyria Babylonia Persia etc. They have said that Noah's ethnicity is Sumerian.

PASAMONSTER

12-31-2003, 02:04 AM

wow

what a history lesson.

whitelotus

01-02-2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by dtox LOL, how come some people hate the Turks, and some people don't? It's kind of odd, seeing as what they did to our race.

why should we hate them ? its just like the hatred they had for us, its rather hypocritical.

by hating turks, raping there woman, we are nothing better then a turk.

i for one, do not hate all turks. Because todays generation doesnt even know about the genocide, its not in there text books, the government covers it up from its own people.

did you know that the reason why many of our ancestores survived, was because many turkish families took us in and hid us from the soldiers and government ? They gave us shelter, protection , food and water.

If you want to hate someone, hate the generation of soldiers and the government who slaughtered us, not the newer generation who isnt responsible for anything

hate the government for the millions they spend campaining against the genocide ever happening, while its economy fails and people dont have electricity.

hate the government who denys us, rather then all turks. Its rather stupid to hate a whole group of people for the actions its dumb ancestors commited.

we should be more open minded about this, rather then infest in more hatred. It takes us no where but back, we should advance in this world, rather then sitting and xxxxxing about something that happened in our past. We should rise together, and try changing some things, getting genocide bills passed, getting into politics, into the media etc

armenians are so busy hating one another, that they never get anywhere in the world. we are not united, we are seperating into groups and one day, there will be no more of us left.

sSsflamesSs

01-02-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by whitelotus armenians are so busy hating one another, that they never get anywhere in the world. we are not united, we are seperating into groups and one day, there will be no more of us left.

DING! DING! DING!

The sooner most of us realize this, the more of a chance we have to survive.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Anonymouse You know I fail to see what youre rambling here is about, but to try to assert that "Armenians" have always had a fixed identity can claim descent upon on common ancestry, holds no bearing, since the people and definition of "Armenian" has changed over time.

I am tired of people trying to create history to conform to the present, where there wasn't any. As far as we know, the first "Armenian" dynasty we can claim as "Armenian" are the Orontids. Beyond that all things are just a guess so stop trying to appeal to imaginations and what ifs.

Now you can copy and paste websites all you want, but linguists will tell you that Urartians spoke a Caucasian language, and it differed from Armenian. Armenians borrowed many words from Urartians, and it is evident today, such as Aram, Ararat, Erebuni. In fact the names of the many Nakharar houses with the "uni" sounding can be traced back to Urartu.

You just can't seem to stomach the fact that "Armenians" aren't this "great race" that has stayed intact for millenias and can claim common ancestry from one fixed place. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Who said otherwise? All I said was that EVERYONE in the near East inherited and agreed to speak that ONE language and yet again you jump to a conclusion that is not there.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 03:13 PM

If you are trying and aiming to BOAST your "racial" ego then that is fine. I was not aiming for that therefore, I do not appreciate you ASSuming that, Anonymouse and the whole point NOW is to MAKE them great and yes everyone was from a a descendent of some other ancient tribe, and you cannot I guess see beyond what your "professor's" numb-minded comments which probably HE even was guided upon, comprehension sure as hell neglected you on that and you indicated that when you tried to accuse me of having a nationalistic approach when clearly, when it comes to history and FACTS I side up with no one. By the way, The Urartuians BLENDED in with the Armenians (Not saying Armenian was the name of it at the time) but they did, if you really want to get in-depth with the name "Aram" which you constantly repeat, try wondering as to WHY some Aztecs have inherited that SAME exact name. Some sources say there really did exist a group of people from the region of Armenia that come across that region and the Indians (in a tribute) made an effort to THANK them by having a dance with their features and making clay tablet figurines that resembled them.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by whitelotus why should we hate them ? its just like the hatred they had for us, its rather hypocritical.

She is only a few peas short of a casserole when she said we are a "race." Even still, we have a right to "hate" Turks.

by hating turks, raping there woman, we are nothing better then a turk.

i for one, do not hate all turks. Because todays generation doesnt even know about the genocide, its not in there text books, the government covers it up from its own people.

did you know that the reason why many of our ancestores survived, was because many turkish families took us in and hid us from the soldiers and government ? They gave us shelter, protection , food and water.

If you want to hate someone, hate the generation of soldiers and the government who slaughtered us, not the newer generation who isnt responsible for anything

hate the government for the millions they spend campaining against the genocide ever happening, while its economy fails and people dont have electricity.

hate the government who denys us, rather then all turks. Its rather stupid to hate a whole group of people for the actions its dumb ancestors commited.

we should be more open minded about this, rather then infest in more hatred. It takes us no where but back, we should advance in this world, rather then sitting and xxxxxing about something that happened in our past. We should rise together, and try changing some things, getting genocide bills passed, getting into politics, into the media etc

armenians are so busy hating one another, that they never get anywhere in the world. we are not united, we are seperating into groups and one day, there will be no more of us left.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 05:09 PM

Here is a source backing up what you so proudly claim as "myth." Now, keep in mind that none of this is my interpretation or knowledge for I will let you play with that. Also, do you even KNOW who the Orontids are? They are a Dynasty not an ethnic culture. I really do not see your "debate" on this because no one is trying to say anyone is "great" if anything we are trying to make them GREAT right now present-day but as for now I will highlight the proof since you have trouble with comprehension of all this spontaneous knowledge, but anyway observe the following:

The appearance of the Armenians in history is linked with the last great wave of Indo-European peoples that flooded the table lands of Eastern Anatolia in about the seventh century before Christ. There were many migrations in the area during this period. Each in turn, the Cimmerians, the Scythians and the Medes brought down the kingdoms of the Phrygians (676-675) and the empire of the Assyrians (612) and finally gave the coup de grace to the kingdom of Urartu.

It is not improbable that the advance of the armenioi towards the east was a consequence of the collapse of the Phrygian kingdom. Herodotus (vii, 73) and Eudoxus (quoted by Stephen of Byzantium) connect the Armenians with the Phygians. But the question of the origins of the Armenian people is far more complicated than this.

If the Armenian language is Indo-European - and indeed, it is an independent branch of this linguistic family - the somatic characteristics of the Armenians are local and classified anthropologically as the Armenoid type: average to tall stature; strong bones; white skin; dark hair and eyes; abundant body hair; long head; short, high skull; long face; narrow, jutting nose, often aquiline; and relatively short legs. All of this would confirm the decisive role of autochthonous features in the ethnic configuration of the Armenian people, while the Indo-European origins of the migrants would be remotely echoed in traditional epics telling of the feats and deeds of a race of tall, blond heroes with blue eyes. This is, in fact, how one of the more popular gods, Vahagn, is depicted in the hymn of his birth. So we can safely say that the Armenians are another example of a fairly common phenomenon in history whereby the language of a conquering minority prevails, but without any effect whatsoever on the influence of climatic and environmental factors on the prevailing physionomy.

The main autochthonous feature - the Urartian - underlying the ethnic composition of the Armenians can definitely be narrowed down to similar "Human" population groups that can be seen as the earliest inhabitants, in the historical period, of the regions surrounding the lake ofVan. All that can be said of this aboriginal or "Anatolian" population is that it was neither Indo-European nor Semitic, even though there had been infiltrations of Indo-European elements from the earliest days onwards, the first of these occurring at the beginning of the second millennium. The Hittite empire was founded and there were small kingdoms of unrelated peoples, such as the Hayasa and the Mitanni, on its eastern and southern borders. It seems that there had already been a symbiosis in these kingdoms between the invading Indo-European warriors and the indigenous tribes. Among these latter, above all, in certain central areas, close to the Human stock, certain traces of language reveal the presence of "Caucasian" populations that might also have had some affinity with the Hurrians.

From this panorama, we can easily conclude that, as early as the second millenium, the regions east of the Euphrates, between the Pontian promontories and Northern Mesopotamia, were a point of encounter for Anatolian, Caucasian and Indo-European tribes.

Nevertheless, certain recent studies bring quite new perspectives to this view, according to which the land of historical Armenia was the cradle of the great family of Indo-European peoples and the starting point of their first mass migrations. If this theory, put forward by Ivanov and Gamkrelidze, were accepted — and this would completely upset early Indo-European history and geography — we would have to conclude also that the Indo-European dimension of the Armenian language has its most ancient roots in loco, even though it was later subjected to the stratification effects of waves of migration from the west and/or from the north east.

The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi.

It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War.

The Orontid (Ervanduni) dynasty, the periods ofAchaemenian and Macedonian dominion

The first Armenian dynasty was that of the Ervanduni, from the name Errand (Eruand), known in Greek historiography in the form Orontes or Aroandes. But it was a short-lived sovereignty, for the Ervanduni were soon subjugated to the rule of Darius I, who shared out their territory between the two satrapies, the xin and thexvin, of his administrative system. Thus, among the twenty-three populations dominated by Darius were the Armenians, alongside the Medes and the Susians, in Adapadana of Persepolis.

Then began a long period of Achaemenian supremacy for Armenia, which still took place within the framework of a certain internal administrative automomy. It was led by its own dynasty, the Orontids who, being related to the Persian court, acted as satraps, or provincial governors. The political supremacy of the Achaemenians was accompanied by a strong influence, particularly in the use of the Persian language, which is revealed by the large number of words, often fairly common ones, borrowed from Persian.

Only Macedonian expansion put an end to the Achaemenian domination, after the victory of Arbela in 331- A general tendency towards autonomy ensued, above all in the central-eastern regions, which were to be called Greater Armenia (Armenia Major).

Xenophon had already spoken of "Western Armenia" as a distinct administrative entity, but subordinated to "Armenia" (Anabasis ra, 5,17), which was led not by a satrap, but by a hyparchos, that is, a lieutenant. Further developments, the consequences of various political and cultural factors, were to result in the formation of two distinct territorial entities known respectively, around the middle of the fourth century, as Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor. The former was to include the eastern regions of the Euphrates, while the latter extended roughly over the territory delineated by the present-day cities of Sivas, Erzincan and Malatya, west and north of the upper elbow of the Euphrates.
Although it often possessed its own rulers, this area was to be deeply affected by the political and cultural influence of the Hellenistic world, finding itself in direct contact with the heavily Hellenized regions of the Pontus and Cappadocia. Greater Armenia, on the other hand, which was more protected from this point of view, was to have a more harmonious development, with greater emphasis on Armenian identity.

The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi. The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi. It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War. It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 06:01 PM

Here is where I prove that the oldest association to Armenians are descended down from our ancestry of "Hittites." Observe:

http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/papazian/hovannisian.html

The history of the Armenian state and people spans over three thousand years and six continents. The Armenian homeland is located on the Armenian plateau, central and eastern Anatolia and southwestern Caucasia--the highlands which dominate the lowlands of Greater Syria and Mesopotamia to the south. The present Armenian Republic, which consists of perhaps a tenth of historic Armenia, is located in the South Caucasus on the eastern end of the historic "Armenian" plateau. The Armenian diaspora, which was created in stages following major invasions and devastations of the homeland, has grown to include colonies on the five major continents and now Australia. Interestingly, there are now more Armenians in the diaspora than in the Armenian Republic, which makes their history a world-wide phenomenon.

The Armenians lived at the crossroads of the ancient world, straddling the trade routes from China, Persia, India, and Arabia to and from Russia and Europe. Those who dominated the Armenian plateau were in a position to control these lucrative trade routes, to utilize the fertile valleys which stretch chiefly on the east-west axis, and to dominate the lowlands to the south. Accordingly, Armenia has been an area of perpetual war and its history determined by international circumstances.

Armenia has been rich and independent at times, particularly under the dynasties of the Ervandids (Orontids), the Artashesians (Artaxids), the Arshakunis (Arsacids), and, during the ninth and tenth centuries, the Bagratunis (Bagratids). At other times, when surrounded by powerful empires or invaded by militant peoples, such as the Mongols or the Central Asiatic Turks, Armenia found itself only autonomous, semi-autonomous, or completely under foreign dominion. Only recently has a second independent Armenian Republic emerged as a result of the demise of the Soviet Union.

Richard Hovannisian, the dean of Armenian scholars in the United States, brought together sixteen expert scholars from the United States and abroad to write a comprehensive history of the Armenians from earliest times until today using the most recent scholarship and resources. This two volume work, dealing with internal as well as external affairs, provides us with the most dependable general history of the Armenians written in the English language.

The earliest Armenian history was related to the Hittites and the Urartians as well as with the peoples of Mesopotamia. After that, Armenian history was intertwined for a thousand years with the Persian empire--in its various manifestations--with which it shared a dynasty and much of its high culture.

With the conquests of Alexander the Great, Armenia, although not conquered by Alexander or his successors, witnessed the Hellenization of its upper classes and a brief empire under king Tigran (Tigranes) the Great, circa 90 B.C.

With the expansion of Rome to the east, and the humbling of Tigran, Armenia became an area of contention between Rome and Persia, finally being divided between them in A.D. 387. During the early Christian period, Armenia received Christianity via Mesopotamia and Greater Syria, and later through the Greeks of Cappadocia, being the first state to establish Christianity as its official religion.

Armenia experienced complex relations with Byzantium, which sought to displace the native nobility and to control Armenia directly through the imperial bureaucracy, thus weakening Armenia's social structure and the determination of her people to defend the land against foreign invaders. This Byzantine policy was to have negative and finally fatal consequences for the Empire.

The invasions of the Arabs, the Seljuk Turks, the Mongols, various Turkmen tribes, all led in stages to a mixture of outsiders among the native Armenians and the dilution of their ranks on the plateau.

Branches of the Armenian nobility, the Hetumids and the Rubenids, established an Armenian kingdom in Cilicia, in the southern part of Asia Minor bordering on the Mediterranean, a kingdom which had close relations with the Crusaders who established minor principalities to the south and east. With the failure of the Crusades, and the rupture of Armenia's advantageous relations with the Mongols when the Mongols accepted Islam, the Armenian kingdom was overcome in the fourteenth century, and its last king, a Lusignan, journeyed to Europe seeking help. The Cilician kingdom, it should be noted, produced a high quality of art, architecture, and literature.

These topics are brilliantly covered in the first volume, chiefly by Nina Garsoian, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University, who reaches the highest standards of the use of primary resources and lucid writing. Other topics in this first volume include Armenian literature, art, and society.

The fall of the Cilician kingdom left only isolated pockets of semiautonomous Armenian life--in Zeitun in the mountains of Cilicia, in the mountains of Sasun in central Anatolia, and in Mountainous Karabagh (Artsakh in Armenian) along the eastern border of the highland. These areas, plus the diaspora, were to be the cradles of the Armenian independence movement.

The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are the dark ages of Armenia. It was completely devastated by Turkmen tribes, the hordes of Tamerlane, and the Persian Safavids. Finally, the Ottoman Turks, who having conquered Constantinople and part of the Balkans, marched eastward to conquer an already devastated historic Armenia.

In analogy with the Muslim system, the Ottomans established the Armenians as a millet, a civil-religious minority governed by the Armenian Church under the aegis of the ruling Muslims. As the Ottomans declined in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Muslim rule became more heavy-handed and unbearable. European ideas of the enlightenment, constitutional government, and the rights of man influenced both the Armenian and the Ottoman elites, causing even more dissatisfaction with the corrupt and autocratic system.

From the European point of view, what to do with the rotting Ottoman Empire became the Eastern Question, and in 1879, when the Armenians appealed to the advancing Russians at San Stefano for succour, the Armenian Question reached the world scene. Widespread massacres of Armenians by Sultan Abdul Hamid 11 in 1894-1896 were followed by the Cilician pogroms of 1909, and culminated in the Armenian Genocide from 1915-22 in which the Armenian plateau was essentially denuded of Armenians. The complexities of the Eastern Question and the Armenian Question are well-covered by Professor Hovannisian, who has written many volumes on this topic.

The Russians, from the time of Peter the Great, began incursions into the Caucasus encouraged by the indigenous Christians of Georgia and Caucasian Armenia. The Russians under Catherine the Great in two Turkish wars took the north coast of the Black Sea and advanced into the Balkans and into Caucasia. Soon, the Russians annexed Georgia and eastern Armenia, which had been weakened by the depredations of Agha Mohammad, the founder of the Qajar dynasty. The fear of Russian expansion into the Ottoman Empire was the root cause of the Crimean War. When the Russians reached the gates of Constantinople during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 and signed the Treaty of San Stefano granting Armenians security in eastern Turkey, the European powers intervened and forced the Russians to sign the Treaty of Berlin, which denied the Armenians Russian protection.

The outbreak of World War I provided the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire with a cover to settle the Armenian Question once and for all. The result was a genocide which all but wiped out the Armenian population of Anatolia.

Following the Armenian Genocide, a small independent republic was established in the territory which lay within the Russian Empire. That republic was to last for only two years until, attacked from the west by the Nationalist Turks and from the North by the Bolshevik Russians, it succumbed to Soviet rule.

Volume II ends with chapters on Soviet Armenia, Armenians in America, and Armenians in the general diaspora. It is a pity that the present independent Republic of Armenia and the struggle of the Armenians for Mountainous Karabagh, which currently draw attention in the headlines, do not fall into the purview of this study. One will have to turn to other books for a treatment of these topics.

Those seeking a scholarly and dependable overview of the history of the Armenians, and not just Armenia itself, will find this work a treasure trove of information and explanation. These books should find a home in any library which has a collection on world affairs. It will be useful to scholarly non-specialists, students of all levels, and the educated public. Its extensive bibliography will prove useful to those who would like to do further research on particular topics. Professor Hewsen, of Rowan College, has provided excellent and original maps throughout. These two volumes should stand the test of time and will not be easily replaced by any general history.

The earliest Armenian history was related to the Hittites and the Urartians as well as with the peoples of Mesopotamia. The earliest Armenian history was related to the Hittites and the Urartians as well as with the peoples of Mesopotamia.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod Here is a source backing up what you so proudly claim as "myth." Now, keep in mind that none of this is my interpretation or knowledge for I will let you play with that. Also, do you even KNOW who the Orontids are? They are a Dynasty not an ethnic culture. I really do not see your "debate" on this because no one is trying to say anyone is "great" if anything we are trying to make them GREAT right now present-day but as for now I will highlight the proof since you have trouble with comprehension of all this spontaneous knowledge, but anyway observe the following:

http://www.ercole.net/hayaser/history.asp?history=25

The appearance of the Armenians in history is linked with the last great wave of Indo-European peoples that flooded the table lands of Eastern Anatolia in about the seventh century before Christ. There were many migrations in the area during this period. Each in turn, the Cimmerians, the Scythians and the Medes brought down the kingdoms of the Phrygians (676-675) and the empire of the Assyrians (612) and finally gave the coup de grace to the kingdom of Urartu.

It is not improbable that the advance of the armenioi towards the east was a consequence of the collapse of the Phrygian kingdom. Herodotus (vii, 73) and Eudoxus (quoted by Stephen of Byzantium) connect the Armenians with the Phygians. But the question of the origins of the Armenian people is far more complicated than this.

If the Armenian language is Indo-European - and indeed, it is an independent branch of this linguistic family - the somatic characteristics of the Armenians are local and classified anthropologically as the Armenoid type: average to tall stature; strong bones; white skin; dark hair and eyes; abundant body hair; long head; short, high skull; long face; narrow, jutting nose, often aquiline; and relatively short legs. All of this would confirm the decisive role of autochthonous features in the ethnic configuration of the Armenian people, while the Indo-European origins of the migrants would be remotely echoed in traditional epics telling of the feats and deeds of a race of tall, blond heroes with blue eyes. This is, in fact, how one of the more popular gods, Vahagn, is depicted in the hymn of his birth. So we can safely say that the Armenians are another example of a fairly common phenomenon in history whereby the language of a conquering minority prevails, but without any effect whatsoever on the influence of climatic and environmental factors on the prevailing physionomy.

The main autochthonous feature - the Urartian - underlying the ethnic composition of the Armenians can definitely be narrowed down to similar "Human" population groups that can be seen as the earliest inhabitants, in the historical period, of the regions surrounding the lake ofVan. All that can be said of this aboriginal or "Anatolian" population is that it was neither Indo-European nor Semitic, even though there had been infiltrations of Indo-European elements from the earliest days onwards, the first of these occurring at the beginning of the second millennium. The Hittite empire was founded and there were small kingdoms of unrelated peoples, such as the Hayasa and the Mitanni, on its eastern and southern borders. It seems that there had already been a symbiosis in these kingdoms between the invading Indo-European warriors and the indigenous tribes. Among these latter, above all, in certain central areas, close to the Human stock, certain traces of language reveal the presence of "Caucasian" populations that might also have had some affinity with the Hurrians.

From this panorama, we can easily conclude that, as early as the second millenium, the regions east of the Euphrates, between the Pontian promontories and Northern Mesopotamia, were a point of encounter for Anatolian, Caucasian and Indo-European tribes.

Nevertheless, certain recent studies bring quite new perspectives to this view, according to which the land of historical Armenia was the cradle of the great family of Indo-European peoples and the starting point of their first mass migrations. If this theory, put forward by Ivanov and Gamkrelidze, were accepted — and this would completely upset early Indo-European history and geography — we would have to conclude also that the Indo-European dimension of the Armenian language has its most ancient roots in loco, even though it was later subjected to the stratification effects of waves of migration from the west and/or from the north east.

The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi.

It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War.

The Orontid (Ervanduni) dynasty, the periods ofAchaemenian and Macedonian dominion

The first Armenian dynasty was that of the Ervanduni, from the name Errand (Eruand), known in Greek historiography in the form Orontes or Aroandes. But it was a short-lived sovereignty, for the Ervanduni were soon subjugated to the rule of Darius I, who shared out their territory between the two satrapies, the xin and thexvin, of his administrative system. Thus, among the twenty-three populations dominated by Darius were the Armenians, alongside the Medes and the Susians, in Adapadana of Persepolis.

Then began a long period of Achaemenian supremacy for Armenia, which still took place within the framework of a certain internal administrative automomy. It was led by its own dynasty, the Orontids who, being related to the Persian court, acted as satraps, or provincial governors. The political supremacy of the Achaemenians was accompanied by a strong influence, particularly in the use of the Persian language, which is revealed by the large number of words, often fairly common ones, borrowed from Persian.

Only Macedonian expansion put an end to the Achaemenian domination, after the victory of Arbela in 331- A general tendency towards autonomy ensued, above all in the central-eastern regions, which were to be called Greater Armenia (Armenia Major).

Xenophon had already spoken of "Western Armenia" as a distinct administrative entity, but subordinated to "Armenia" (Anabasis ra, 5,17), which was led not by a satrap, but by a hyparchos, that is, a lieutenant. Further developments, the consequences of various political and cultural factors, were to result in the formation of two distinct territorial entities known respectively, around the middle of the fourth century, as Greater Armenia and Armenia Minor. The former was to include the eastern regions of the Euphrates, while the latter extended roughly over the territory delineated by the present-day cities of Sivas, Erzincan and Malatya, west and north of the upper elbow of the Euphrates.
Although it often possessed its own rulers, this area was to be deeply affected by the political and cultural influence of the Hellenistic world, finding itself in direct contact with the heavily Hellenized regions of the Pontus and Cappadocia. Greater Armenia, on the other hand, which was more protected from this point of view, was to have a more harmonious development, with greater emphasis on Armenian identity.

The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi. The kingdom of Urartu collapsed towards the end of the seventh or beginning of the sixth century b.c. The Greeks called the new ethnopolitical entity that succeeded the Urartians the armenioi. It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War. It is first mentioned in the Old Persian form arminiya in the cuneiform three-language Behistun inscription by Darius I (c. 520) as one of the peoples subjugated to his rule. The new ethnopolitical situation remained substantially unaltered until the extinction of the Armenian kingdom of the Bagratids (Bagratuni) in 1045 a. d., when the Turkish tribes made their arrival on the political scene in Anatolia. But even after these changes in the late Middle Ages, the Armenian people were to go on living in the same regions for another 900 years, until the tragic depopulation of most of those parts during the First World War.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 06:11 PM

The Yerevantunis were the main controllers of the "ARmenians'" segregated kingdoms. Just to be clear once again I have provided you all proof:

http://virtuals.compulink.gr/armen-yth/pages/hst2uk.htm

Around 550 BC the Persians led by Cyrus the Great, displaced the Medes. The rise of the Persians brought Armenia under the Persian rule from the 6th century until 334 BC, becoming thus a part of the empire under the first semi-autonomous Armenian dynasty, the Yervantunis (Orontids). Armenia was divided into provinces called satrapies, each with a local governing satrap supervised by a Persian secretary. The Armenians paid heavy tribute to the Persians, who continually requisitioned silver, rugs, horses, slaves and military supplies.
The Persian culture and Zoroastrian religion greatly influenced the spiritual life of the Armenian people who absorbed features of Zoroastrianism into their polytheistic and animistic indigenous beliefs. The Persian trade and defense system, however, encouraged significant expansion of Armenian travel and commerce.

Taking advantage of a civil war among the Persians, the Yervantunis ruled continuously until the Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great and conquered southern Armenia. The Armenians in the north were able to resist the advance of Alexander, defeating the armies of General Menon. At that time the Greeks appointed a new satrap, named Mithranes, to govern Armenia.
The Greek Empire, which stretched across Asia and Europe, was one in which cities rapidly grew, spreading Hellenistic architecture, religion and philosophies. Armenian culture too, absorbed Greek influences.
As centers at the crossroads of trade routes connecting China, India and Central Asia with the Mediterranean, Armenian cities throve on economic exchange. A new merchant and artisan social class developed as cities multiplied. Armenian's agricultural economy soon became one based one trade and monetary exchange. The Greeks also infused Armenian's version of Zoroastrianism with facets of their religious beliefs.

Alexander the Great died in 323 BC. The Seleucid rule that followed, was weak and disorganized. Several Armenian princes, profiting from the situation, broke away to establish semi-independent kingdoms, notably,

Greater Armenia,
Lesser Armenia and
Tzork (Sophene),

the Yervantunis however, continued to retain control over the largest of three kingdoms into which Armenia itself had been divided.

A coup d'etat in 200 BC ended the Yervantunis rule in Greater Armenia, with Artashes (Artaxias) declaring himself King of Greater Armenia and founding a new dynasty. It was to become the most powerful in Armenian history. A pact of alliance with the rising Romans left Greater Armenia free from a Seleucid threat, and Artashes expanded his territory by defining the borders of his land, spanning an area from the River Halys to the Caspian Sea and from the Tigris River to the Kur, and unifying the Armenian people. Mindful of the Romans and the Parthians, Artashes set up a number of semi-independent buffer states, which earned him the name of "World Conqueror". Although the official language of the Armenian court had for a time been Aramaic, then Persian and later Greek, Artashes encouraged the adoption of Armenian as the language of the people.

The Greek geographer Strabo justifiably considers Artashes' greatest achievement to be the linguistic and cultural unification of Armenia insuring thus the cultural survival of Armenia amid the powerful influences of the surrounding Persian and Hellenistic cultures.

the Yervantunis however, continued to retain control over the largest of three kingdoms into which Armenia itself had been divided. the Yervantunis however, continued to retain control over the largest of three kingdoms into which Armenia itself had been divided.

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 06:20 PM

The origin of the Urarteans is given below. The following will now seek to present the fact that there was intervention among "Armenian" and Urarteans and as to WHY it is complicated to trace the exact origins of Armenians, simply because they agreed to adopt the "Biblical" knowledge some say, which is called "Aramai." Please observe:

http://www.calstatela.edu/orgs/asa/main/ArmoHeritage/EarlyAges/earlyCivilization.html

Armenia has one of the oldest indigenous cultures of any of the peoples of the USSR. Armenia is also credited as being the first state to establish Christianity as its official religion.

Contemporary scholarship suggests that the Armenians are descendants of various indigenous people who meld (10th through 7th century BC) with the Urarteans (Ararateans); while classical historians and geographers cite the tradition that the Armenians migrated into their homeland from Thrace and Phrygia (Herodotus, Strabo), or even Thessaly (Strabo). These views are not necessarily contradictory, since present-day Armenians are undoubtedly an amalgam of several peoples, autochthonous (Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi, Hurrians, etc.) and immigrant, who emerged as one linguistic family around 600 BC.

The Armenian language, like Greek and Iranian, is a part of the Indo-European family of languages that is spoken from north India, through Afghanistan, Iran, Armenia, and Greece into Europe and European Russia. The Armenian alphabet, devised early in the fifth century by St. Mesrob (Mashtotz)--who also produced a script for the Christian Georgians and Caucasian Albanians--is unique, although based in part on Greek uncials and the Armazi variety of Aramaic script. Armenia was located near the cradles of ancient civilizations--the Mesopotamian, bordering immediately to the south; the Egyptian in the southwest; and the Indus to the east--and was affected by each, but most significantly by Mesopotamian. The name "Urartu", in the form "Urashtu", occurs frequently in Babylonian inscriptions. The earliest known mention of the "Armenian" people (as the Armenoi), occurs in the writings of the Greek historian Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 550 BC), and of "Armenia" (Armina) in the Behistun inscription of Darius I (c. 520 BC).

Present-day scholarship shows that Armenia experienced its Lower Paleolithic period from 500,000 BC or earlier. A change from nomadic to sedentary life occurred in the Neolithic period in Armenia (c. 6,000 BC) about the same time as in the lower valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the headwaters of which rise in Armenia. Chalcolithic culture (4,000 BC) relates Armenia to the Caucasus, Iran and Mesopotamia; while the Bronze Age in Armenia began c. 3,200 BC and extended up to and coexisted with the era of iron smelting and working which was inaugurated c. 1,000 BC. Erevan (Erebuni, Arin-Berd), the capital of the Armenian SSR, was founded before 782 BC, when we find it first mentioned in historic sources.

The rise of Achaemenid Persia (c. 550 BC) brought Armenia into the Iranian socio-political-economic orbit, and it became a satrapy (number XIII) of the empire under the first semi-autonomous Armenian dynasty, the Orontids [Avestan aurand, mighty hero; Pahlevi, arvand; Armenian, ervand], related to the Persian royal house.

The Persian trade and defense system encouraged significant expansion of Armenian travel and commerce. The classical description of Armenia under the Achaemenids is that of Xenophon, who crossed it with his Ten Thousand (c. 400 BC). It is during this period that the Armenian nobility adopted Mazdaism and saw it merge with indigenous native beliefs of which we have only scant knowledge.[B]These views are not necessarily contradictory, since present-day Armenians are undoubtedly an amalgam of several peoples, autochthonous (Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi, Hurrians, etc.) and immigrant, who emerged as one linguistic family around 600 BC. These views are not necessarily contradictory, since present-day Armenians are undoubtedly an amalgam of several peoples, autochthonous (Hayasa-Azzi, Nairi, Hurrians, etc.) and immigrant, who emerged as one linguistic family around 600 BC. [B][U]The name "Urartu", in the form "Urashtu", occurs frequently in Babylonian inscriptions. The earliest known mention of the "Armenian" people (as the Armenoi), occurs in the writings of the Greek historian Hecataeus of Miletus (c. 550 BC), and of "Armenia" (Armina) in the Behistun [Bisitun] inscription of Darius I (c. 520 BC).

Nimrod

01-03-2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod Who said otherwise? All I said was that EVERYONE in the near East inherited and agreed to speak that ONE language and yet again you jump to a conclusion that is not there.

Excuse me, but I do not need to try anything when I have the evidence right there. Notice how all you do is recite your Professor's skewed perspective yet you never compare facts together while I just like now showed you the evidence. Alright I will conclude this finally by saying that: If you are an Atheist then I guess you can rely on your pseudo-"Linguistic" theories. Any Christian or anyone that really believes such master-mind information from such an array of sources like the Bible or even historian records will find everything I have written credible enough. I guess it is all a matter of belief because everything you told me earlier contradicts what you spout out right now with your petty mockeries and at the same time, it basically opposes other Archaelogical evidence or even anyone else who does believe in "Noah." But again you are entitled to believe whatever it is you wish. I was taking this all from a non-secular view even though I do agree that there was a flood and there was a Mt.Ararat which Noah's family dilated life upon.

whitelotus

01-03-2004, 06:30 PM

ryan you quoted me, but what did you respond with ? i dont see anything.

Nimrod

01-06-2004, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by whitelotus ryan you quoted me, but what did you respond with ? i dont see anything.

I did it got cut off Lilly. Anonymouse is trying to attempt to bend history to his own agenda. He should not try to pin political labels on me because of my perspective and facts I have included. History education in America in hands should be a little more than a xxxwash-- and I know that by his theory he appointed.

Anonymouse

01-06-2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod I did it got cut off Lilly. Anonymouse is trying to attempt to bend history to his own agenda. He should not try to pin political labels on me because of my perspective and facts I have included. History education in America in hands should be a little more than a xxxwash-- and I know that by his theory he appointed.

By the "theory" I appoint?

Listen Numbrod, you come to the forums, which is not the profiles, and you attempt to try to join discussions using methods that would get a high school student an F with your gross assumptions and distortions to fit into whatever ego driven slant you have going on.

What "theory" am I appointing? The fact that no one is "pure" and "nationalism" and "nation" is based on false claims? Guess what, the same "theory" I am appointing, which you call xxxish influenced, applies to xxxs and Israel as well, since they have no claim to that land aside from the Bible, which doesn't mention anything called a "xxx" since this is a relatively modern term, surfacing AFTER Shakespeare, the Bible only refers to Hebrews. xxxs are not Hebrews.

You never attempt to discuss any of the topics, instead you get into a copy and paste frenzy and attempt to "prove" whatever it is that you're out to prove. So what if "Armenians" descended from "Hittites". Those people who are "Armenians" that descended from "Hittites" didn't call themselves so, in fact we have no idea since they had no written language, our best shot is a guess. Furthermore, only with the perspective of hindsight are we able to tell these things and give them labels such as "Armenian". I cannot see where you are trying to go with this, maybe to give claims to Armenian lands, or some sort of superiority that we were "the most ancient ones" or "civilization started from Armenians". The "theory" I am appointing applies to all people since no one is "pure" and throughout time people have mixed and changed, so the past is not necessarily the determining factor of what the future will be. I have already come to terms that "Armenians" will disappear, and that just because during Tigran the Great Armenia was from sea to sea, isn't a justification for Armenia to be so today, in other words because it was so ages ago under a different time, doesn't mean we can use that as a measuring stick to have all the lands returned to us since those "Armenians" under Tigran were far more different than the "Armenians" that we are now, and ultimatley this is what leads me to a unpopular stance with Armenians since I don't want "lands back" if Turkey admits to the Genocide. Too many Armenians are caught in this little hurdle. Nations, people, and boundaries change, since history is not a point in time, it is a process.

Nimrod

01-06-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Anonymouse By the "theory" I appoint?

Listen Numbrod, you come to the forums, which is not the profiles, and you attempt to try to join discussions using methods that would get a high school student an F with your gross assumptions and distortions to fit into whatever ego driven slant you have going on.

What "theory" am I appointing? The fact that no one is "pure" and "nationalism" and "nation" is based on false claims? Guess what, the same "theory" I am appointing, which you call xxxish influenced, applies to xxxs and Israel as well, since they have no claim to that land aside from the Bible, which doesn't mention anything called a "xxx" since this is a relatively modern term, surfacing AFTER Shakespeare, the Bible only refers to Hebrews. xxxs are not Hebrews.

You never attempt to discuss any of the topics, instead you get into a copy and paste frenzy and attempt to "prove" whatever it is that you're out to prove. So what if "Armenians" descended from "Hittites". Those people who are "Armenians" that descended from "Hittites" didn't call themselves so, in fact we have no idea since they had no written language, our best shot is a guess. Furthermore, only with the perspective of hindsight are we able to tell these things and give them labels such as "Armenian". I cannot see where you are trying to go with this, maybe to give claims to Armenian lands, or some sort of superiority that we were "the most ancient ones" or "civilization started from Armenians". The "theory" I am appointing applies to all people since no one is "pure" and throughout time people have mixed and changed, so the past is not necessarily the determining factor of what the future will be. I have already come to terms that "Armenians" will disappear, and that just because during Tigran the Great Armenia was from sea to sea, isn't a justification for Armenia to be so today, in other words because it was so ages ago under a different time, doesn't mean we can use that as a measuring stick to have all the lands returned to us since those "Armenians" under Tigran were far more different than the "Armenians" that we are now, and ultimatley this is what leads me to a unpopular stance with Armenians since I don't want "lands back" if Turkey admits to the Genocide. Too many Armenians are caught in this little hurdle. Nations, people, and boundaries change, since history is not a point in time, it is a process.

"Listen Numbrod" real college-bound maturity there. I am not saying we are "pure" or anything. Frankly, no one is pure and I really do not see what your motive is with something I did not say. I do NOT understand why that will not penetrate through your thick skull. Et al YES, I am not disagreeing with you. But we go by what we are mostly, I have said that over and over-- I am a broken record player now-- If you are 60% Chinese and only 40% Irish then you TECHNICALLY are CHINESE. We do not measure in such detailed specific terms. IF you put it into your dull-underestimation and calculations NO ONE is anything. There exists not White or Yellow or Red or any race. You have managed once again to turn what I said into your regurgitated propoganda that you were brainwashed with. I will repeat once again in case you were stunned by that UCLA weed smoke: I AM NOT SAYING WE ARE ALL PURE. Pure means 100% one fixed identity. I do not think ANYONE anywhere has that. Save your bickerings with all of this detailed facts and apply it to where it belongs. What I am saying is (PAY ATTENTION) we are the descendents of those ancient tribes. Meaning THAT IS WHERE WE COME FROM. In case you forgot, this is a DISCUSSION and a learning process about ARMENIANS and who we are. No one was ranting about how "great" or "terrible" we are. This is why many Armenians are the way they are because you get all caught up with two total contrary things at the same time and you try to intercede it with your "professor s" theory while trying to conceal your tainted views by including the rest of the bunch (such as the xxxS into a category that puts them to shame.) WE ALREADY KNEW THAT. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. WHAT I WAS IMPLYING was that their FORCE of propoganda is far greater than what your little miniscule mind can bare. Still as of today they deny that they crucified Christ. They reply "It was the Romans." As for your "copy and paste" Well I was just trying to PROVE by highlighting the information and sources of where I retrieved them and you really need to learn to compare and INTERACT with some of your material. Also, if you are to believe what you have "learned" then why do we care to acknowledge any RACE or ethnicity? Such as those listed on standardized tests and else where? It says "Check one of the following" then it shows a list of different races: White Black etc. Why check any of those" Well maybe a better way to sum it up in your fashion is "We do not really know how do we know????" See, you have no valid arguments either way because what you are addressing does not cover 100% of anything else either whether it be the "bible" or any anthropological evidence. We have established everything so far that historians have managed to DIG UP and discover. Still as of today the EXACT origins and lifestyle of "Armenians" is far too complicated to investigate to give a conrete answer to, for anyone.

One final time I will say this so that we are clear: THE BIBLE SAYS THAT WHOLE REGION SPOKE AND ACCEPTED ONE LANGUAGE : Aramai. Therefore, take your petty "that descended from "Hittites" didn't call themselves so, in fact we have no idea since they had no written language, our best shot is a guess. " elsewhere since that lost it s vitality.

My goal (just so you would stop presuming things I have never indicated): To be as clear as possible as to who we are why we are and how we are. There is "nationalistic" ego boasts because we are not here to verse against other ethnicities. If we or I better yet, want to learn some credible tactics on appearing "superior" I will give you a call since you proudly throw your hat into that sort of thing. On a final note, I would appreciate it if you would stop jumbling up facts together against me just to mold this into some "positive" cause. Nations are what we make them, PERIOD end of story. As for the rest of that information you have managed to once again facilitate, TELL US something we do not know and stop trying to conjure up facts to fix and create this "holy wiseman" identity to yourself.

Nimrod

01-06-2004, 04:00 PM

If "race" and or "nations" do not matter and since you really neglect to see their importance then tell me where BLACKS came from (African-Americans.) I will determine your what your actual goal is based upon your response.

Nimrod

01-06-2004, 04:06 PM

Despite all of that, tell me this: why do you (knowing what you know) consider yourself a fixed ethnicity? Why call yourself Armenian? Why call yourself anything for that matter? You don't know. How do you know you are Armenian? Remember? That "region has been invaded and conquered by many people."Well ok, that means for all we know we could be Assyrians or even Arabs or even TURKS or even MONGOLS( those tribes cannot be mongrels remember?.) And you know, it s funny that you mention a function that you are familiar with, "copy paste." Let me guess, you were "high" on that one as well? I think I speak for everyone who witnessed that when I say you really jump to too many conclusions without assessing proper historical significance.

TigranJamharian

01-06-2004, 06:22 PM

Anon you are an unpatriotic piece of crap. take your liberal "love everyone, history doesnt matter" bullxxxx somewhere else please. i didnt expect this from you.

Anonymouse

01-17-2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by TigranJamharian Anon you are an unpatriotic piece of crap. take your liberal "love everyone, history doesnt matter" bullxxxx somewhere else please. i didnt expect this from you.

Shut up you turd tossing tard.

Anonymouse

01-17-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod Despite all of that, tell me this: why do you (knowing what you know) consider yourself a fixed ethnicity? Why call yourself Armenian? Why call yourself anything for that matter? You don't know. How do you know you are Armenian? Remember? That "region has been invaded and conquered by many people."Well ok, that means for all we know we could be Assyrians or even Arabs or even TURKS or even MONGOLS( those tribes cannot be mongrels remember?.) And you know, it s funny that you mention a function that you are familiar with, "copy paste." Let me guess, you were "high" on that one as well? I think I speak for everyone who witnessed that when I say you really jump to too many conclusions without assessing proper historical significance.

Please refer to my "The Armenian Nation" Thread for an explanation.

I am Armenian, because I speak the language and out of English, the broken Russian, and Armenian that I know, Armenian is what I speak in my conscience to myself.

In learning a language we are imbued with a way of thinking and expressing thoughts predetermined by that language. So by choosing Armenian as my rallying point and main language, I am ipso facto Armenian.

This is my post in my thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Essentially this is my problem, and the whole reason I started this thread...namely that there is an Armenian nation and its for the Armenian people who are descendents of either Hayk, or Hayasa, or whatever tribes you can think of. This is ahistorical for it ignores history. This little graph will perhaps convey what I am trying to say.

R=Roman
P=Persian
A=Arabic
G=Greek
M=Mongol
Ru=Russian
As=Assyrian

Hayk --------R--------- G---------- A ----------Ru-------------
Hayasa ---------------------------------------------------------------Present
Tribes,etc. -------------As------- P----------- M--------------

Do you see what I am trying to get it? We may have a straight line and say "We descended from Hayk, etc.", but that doesn't take into account all the shifts, and changes of history. Maybe I descended from a Greek, and you from an Arab, and he from a Assyrian, but what we had in common is adopting Armenian as the dominant language form. Thus that is the problem with nationalism in that it projects itself into the past and says "we descended from this". Well maybe so, but no one stays pure, especially not in that region of the Caucasus.

vrej

01-19-2004, 07:49 PM

i know im entering this discussion a bit too late, but of my knowledge and study of history we are the descendant of Noahs son hapet's son's Torkom, who's son was Haig.

this is why we are also called Torkomia Tzegh.. the race of Torkom. yes we have always inhabited the Armenian mountainous region and sadly the ancient history taught these days fail to mention the Armenian's role in history.

Armenia was known to be the land of the gods as mentioned in the epic of Gilgamesh, wher gilgamesh travels to the land where the gods meet to find the tree of life, and he was going to Armenia. We beleived in the god Ar as the highest deity who was the sun god.. hence why we are also known to be the aryan race
Ar- sun god yan (the son of)
the list goes on and if needed i will continue...

jahannam

01-19-2004, 11:29 PM

wooow
Vrej is back!
I was going through some old threads the other day, and I read your posts. you were a good part of our forum family.
welcome back!:D

vrej

01-20-2004, 07:28 AM

why thank you, ya i was away for a while .. i'm really busy with A.R.F.Y.O.C and A.S.A for i'm in both executives.

i saw really interesting threads and decided to voice my opinion on some, although i might not be able to post as much as i used to!

Sarkis

04-09-2007, 01:41 PM

Gene of Mideast Ancestor May Link 4 Disparate Peoples

Article Tools Sponsored By
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: August 22, 1997

Several thousand years ago, somewhere in the Middle East, there lived a person who bequeathed a particular gene to many present-day descendants. But these millions of now distant relatives could not convincingly be called one big happy family. They include xxxs, Arabs, Turks and Armenians.

The gene, a variant of a gene that controls fever, has come to light because it causes an unusual disease called familial Mediterranean fever in people who inherit a copy from both parents. The gene's presence among a surprising group of populations hints at the rich archeology that lies buried in the human genome, once geneticists and historians have learned how to interpret it.

Two rival teams of scientists in France and the United States have been racing to isolate the gene for a year. The race finished today, with the American team announcing its finding in the journal Cell, the French team in Nature Genetics.

The American team has named the gene pyrin, from the Greek word for fire, after its role in fever; the French team calls it marenostrin after the Latin ''Our Sea,'' a Roman phrase for the Mediterranean. The race could be considered a dead heat, although the American team has recovered the whole gene, the French team just a major portion.

People who inherit a single variant copy of the fever gene from one parent and a normal copy from the other parent have no sign of the disease. They are so numerous, constituting up to 20 percent of certain xxxish and Armenian populations, that carrying one copy is assumed to confer some significant benefit, like a greater resistance to disease.

In people with two copies, however, the immune system goes into overdrive at inappropriate moments, causing bouts of severe fever. The scientists who have analyzed the fever gene and its variants say they now understand why.

The normal gene specifies a protein that from its design motifs looks as if it is meant to slip into the nucleus of the cell and switch genes on or off. Since the gene is active only in a special class of white blood cells, its usual duty seems to be to control the cells' activity and rein them in when the threat of infection has passed. The white blood cells defend against infections and often cause fever in doing so.

The new findings, in portraying the exact genetic anatomy of the normal gene and its variant forms, give a strong clue as to why the variant versions have the effects they do. The variant forms have mutations, or changes of a single DNA letter, in the region of the gene assigned to the switching function. Presumably the mutations make the gene's protein inefficient in its duty of restraining the white blood cells.

The historical significance of the finding lies in the genetic relationship it implies between populations that have been separate for many hundreds of years. For example, the variant form of the gene found in North African xxxs, Iraqi xxxs and Armenians is the same, carrying both the same mutation and a pattern of 11 other genetic changes, all harmless. Although single genetic changes can arise independently, the presence of so many together in the same combination points strongly to a ''founder'' or single ancestor as the original source of the variant gene.

A second variant form of the gene, according to the American team, is shared by Iraqi xxxs, Ashkenazi xxxs, the Moslem Druze sect and Armenians. The two variants are similar and probably derive from the same founder.

The Americans write that the mutations are ''very old'' and that they suggest ''common origins for several Middle Eastern populations.''

Dr. Daniel L. Kastner, a member of the team, said the original possessor of the variant gene probably lived several thousand years ago and certainly less than 40,000 years ago, according to a formula that relates the average length of a shared genetic segment to the number of generations that have passed. Dr. Kastner said the founder's gene may have spread through a population in the Middle East that existed before xxxs, Armenians and Arabs became distinct peoples.

He also noted that the variant fever gene established a common genetic lineage between Ashkenazi xxxs and Iraqi xxxs, even though the two communities have been separated since the Babylonian Captivity that began in 597 B.C. Many xxxs from the ancient community in Iraq now live in Israel.

The French team has detected the main variant in xxxs and Arabs from North Africa and in Turks and Armenians. Dr. Jean Weissenbach of the gene laboratory Genethon, a member of the French team, said that the variant gene was ancient but that an exact date of it origin could not be calculated.

Experts in Middle Eastern history and linguistics said they knew of no historical event to link the four populations in which the variant fever gene has been found, although three - Arabs, xxxs and Armenians - are related geographically, having originated in the Middle East. The ancestral Armenian homeland is around Lake Van in Turkey. The Seljuk Turks invaded from Central Asia in the 11th century, and they absorbed many of the local inhabitants.

Familial Mediterranean fever is rare in the United States. Patients often endure years of misdiagnoses. Once the disease is recognized, an effective drug, colchicine, is available. Now that the DNA sequence of the variant gene is known, an accurate test can be made.

''This will really help to diagnose the disease in the very early stages and to start the colchicine treatment as soon as possible,'' Dr. Weissenbach said.

The American-led team includes scientists from Israel and Australia. The French team is from Genethon in Evry and two other laboratories.