The term “Urartu” has been a subject of debate among historians and scholars, particularly when it comes to its relationship with ancient Armenia. Some consider “Urartu” to be a misnomer or a false term when referring to the ancient Armenian state of Aratta. To clarify the historical context, it’s essential to differentiate between these two entities and explore their origins.
Aratta, as mentioned in Sumerian sources, is believed to have existed in the territory of present-day Armenia during the 5th-4th millennium BC. This ancient state is often associated with the early history of the Armenian people. However, the generally accepted date for the establishment of Armenia as a state is 2492 BC, according to the Chronological Table by Mikael Chamchyan. This date marks the victory of Hayk, the legendary leader of the Armenians, over the Babylonian tyrant Bel. Following this triumph, Hayk founded the Armenian state and the royal dynasty of Haykazuni.
On the other hand, Urartu was an Iron Age kingdom that existed between the 9th and 6th centuries BC, located in the Armenian Highlands. The term “Urartu” is derived from Assyrian inscriptions and has been used to describe the people, culture, and kingdom of this region during that period. Some scholars argue that the Urartian civilization was a precursor to the Armenian culture, while others emphasize the distinctiveness of each entity.
The 19th century marked a turning point in the study of ancient Armenian history, with the unexpected discovery of cuneiform inscriptions within the region. Mikayel Chamchyan’s “Chronological Table” had already established the narrative of Hayk’s victory over the Babylonian tyrant Bel, which led to the creation of the Armenian state and the foundation of the Haykazuni dynasty. However, these newfound discoveries would go on to challenge and enrich our understanding of the region’s past.
The decipherment of cuneiform scripts by non-specialists like G. Grotefend, followed by the efforts of G. Rawlinson, E. Hinks, and J. Oppert, revolutionized the study of ancient Near Eastern history. These scholars managed to unlock the secrets of Old Persian cuneiform and other cuneiform systems, shedding light on the complex histories of the forgotten peoples, kings, and state formations in the region.
As archaeological excavations expanded throughout the 19th century, cuneiform inscriptions were unearthed in Armenia, resembling the Assyrian cuneiform at first glance. These inscriptions would later be identified as belonging to the kingdom of Urartu, which existed between the 9th and 6th centuries BC in the Armenian Highlands. The discovery of these inscriptions sparked scholarly interest in the relationship between Urartu and ancient Armenia.
The discovery of cuneiform inscriptions in Armenia, initially mistaken for Assyrian cuneiform, presented an intriguing challenge for scholars. Since the Assyrian cuneiform had already been deciphered, they attempted to read the Armenian inscriptions using the same method. As a result, a new script emerged with an incomprehensible pronunciation of words that appeared deliberately distorted.
Unfortunately, instead of questioning the potential differences between the Assyrian and Armenian cuneiform scripts, scholars proceeded to interpret these inscriptions without considering the possibility of distinct linguistic features or local adaptations. This oversight led to the creation of a concept that dealt with fictitious people and a state that never existed.
The language that emerged from this distorted reading of the cuneiform inscriptions was dubbed “Urartian,” and the corresponding state was called “Urartu.” The term “Urartu” is found only in Assyrian cuneiform as a designation for the territory in the Armenian Highlands. This misleading interpretation of the inscriptions has generated confusion and controversy in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies.
The emergence of the concept of “Urartu” indeed caused some confusion in the study of ancient Armenian history, particularly about the works of Movses Khorenatsi, a prominent Armenian historian. To accommodate the idea of Urartu, the historical value of Khorenatsi’s “History of Armenia” was dismissed as fiction, and the information therein was labeled as legendary. Consequently, the study of Khorenatsi’s work shifted from a historical to a literary focus.
The theory that the Armenian people formed from a conglomeration of Urartian tribes, with Armenia emerging as a result of Urartu’s collapse in the 6th century BC, was developed to reconcile these inconsistencies. However, this theory did not go unquestioned.
In the early 20th century, Czech linguist and historian Bedřich Hrozný deciphered Hittite cuneiform and discovered the royal archives of the Hittite capital Hattusa. These documents provided clear and unequivocal evidence of a state called Hayasa on the territory of the Armenian Highlands. Initially, this discovery was not given much significance, but as new facts emerged, scholars were forced to reconsider their understanding of the region’s history.
The challenge was to accommodate both Hayasa and Urartu within the same territory, ensuring that they coexisted without conflicting with each other. Furthermore, it was suggested that Hayasa could be the successor to Urartu and even the cause of its fall.
The discovery of Hayasa in the Hittite documents led to a competition among scholars, such as E. Forrer, A. Khachatryan, N. Adonts, and Gr. Gapantsyan, to successfully localize the newly identified state. Various theories were proposed, placing Hayasa in different regions of the Armenian Highlands, but none could be considered definitive. As more Hittite documents were deciphered, the concept of Urartu seemed increasingly unstable, and it appeared as though the idea of Urartu, the Urartian language, and the Urartians existed only in the imaginations of the scholars who had created it.
Before addressing the crisis of the Urartu concept, it is essential to examine the historical context of the terms Hayas-Nairi-Urartu-Armenia and to understand the reasons for the emergence, success, and fall of the Urartu concept.
The ethnic term “Hay” is present in the name of the country “Hayk-Hayastan,” which is what Armenians call their homeland. The Hittite suffix “sa” is equivalent to the Armenian suffix “k” and the Persian “stan.” The name “Hayasa” is the closest to the Armenian name of Armenia, and since it appears in Hittite cuneiforms dating back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, it can be inferred that the Armenian state, as a specific ethno-cultural phenomenon, has existed at least since that time.
The Hittite kingdom’s location to the west of Hayasa led to a focus on the western regions of the Armenian Highlands in historical records due to trade relations and military campaigns. This emphasis on the western regions led some researchers to erroneously believe that Hayasa was located only in the western part of the Armenian Highlands, in High or Lesser Armenia, rather than spanning the entire region. This notion seemed like a compromise, as it did not conflict with the territory occupied by the Urartu state.
However, historical evidence soon emerged, indicating that Hayasa also encompassed the central and eastern regions of the Armenian Highlands. The fortified Hayasan city of Aripsa, for example, was described in Hittite sources as being “in the sea, inside the sea,” which E. Forrer believed to refer to Lake Van. This interpretation suggests that Hayasa was also present in the central and eastern parts of the Armenian Highlands, overlapping with the territory of Urartu.
The name “Urartu” is Assyrian in origin and is associated with Assyrian cuneiform and the Assyrian world. Notably, the term is not found in the so-called “Urartian” cuneiform itself. It is not the only term used to designate a part of the Armenian Highlands occupied by the Assyrians. In the 13th century BC, when the Hittite state fell, the Hittite records about Hayasa disappeared, along with the specific form of the country’s name.
In summary, the historical context and evidence suggest that Hayasa spanned across the entirety of the Armenian Highlands, including the regions later known as Urartu. The terminological confusion and the limitations of available sources have led to misconceptions and fragmented understanding of the region’s history.
As the Assyrians became more familiar with the territories to their north, they replaced the term “Nairi” with its synonym, “Urartu,” which was derived from the local geographical name Ararat (or Ayrarat). This new term more accurately reflected the location of the country compared to the previous, less specific term Nairi, which meant “country of rivers.” The change made sense, as the Armenian state in ancient times was often referred to as the Kingdom of Ararat, for example, in the Bible.
The term “Ararat” undoubtedly has connections to Armenian toponymy and vocabulary. It is associated with the name of the god Ara (Aramazd) from the Armenian pagan pantheon and means, in the form Ararad, “the abode of Ara.” The Assyrian form of the name Ararat is Urartu, while the Babylonian form is Urashtu.
It’s worth noting that in Assyrian cuneiform, the cuneiform sign “u” at the beginning of a word could also be read as “a,” leading to two different spellings for the same term. For example, “state” could be represented as either Urashtu or Arashtu, “country” as either Urme or Arme, and “city” as either Urmeyate or Armaid. Consequently, Urartu is equivalent to Arartu, or Ararat.
Indeed, it would be unreasonable to assume that the names of Mount Ararat and the central region of Armenia, Ayrarat, originated from the Assyrian term “Urartu,” which was only used for a few centuries. Instead, the Assyrian name Urartu or Arartu, as well as the Babylonian Urashtu or Arashtu, were derived from the Armenian name Ararat, as they designated the territory based on the local geographical name.
The term “Urartu” (Arartu) in the Assyrian cuneiforms is not of Assyrian origin; rather, it is a local geographical name that replaced the previously used term “Nairi.” As the Assyrians became more familiar with the country, they began to use the local ethnic name, “Wayais,” which is similar to the Hittite term “Hayasa” and the Armenian term “Hayk.” By the 7th century BCE, the Assyrians referred to the so-called “Nairo-Urartian” kings as “haya” (or “aya”) kings, which essentially means Armenian kings.
For a researcher who is not bound by established concepts, it becomes evident that the concept of Urartu is merely a curiosity, a result of an error that led to a series of subsequent mistakes. However, tradition possesses a powerful inertia that resists change, often disregarding the obvious and clinging to illusions for the sake of familiarity and stereotypical thinking. This resistance to change is the primary reason why misconceptions like the one about Urartu continue to persist.
It is important to note that the term “Armenia” (Armina) is associated with the Median-Persian world rather than the Assyrians. From Media-Persia, the term moved to Greece and then further to Europe. As suggested by researchers like B. B. Piotrovsky and G. A. Melikishvili, this term is derived from the name of the country Arme, which was located in the southwestern part of Urartu.
More specifically, the term Armina is linked to the region of Aramale (Armarili), located east of Lake Van, which translates to “place of Aram,” named after King Aram – the first “Urartian” (Armenian) king mentioned by the Assyrians. The Medes-Persians referred to the entire vast territory of the Armenian Highlands, including the region of Aramale, as “Armina.”
The Behistun Inscription, a trilingual cuneiform text on Behistun rock, provides evidence that the ancient Persian term “Armina” (Armenia) is identical to the Assyrian “Urartu.” In the Babylonian text of the inscription, the country is called “Urashtu,” while in Persian, it is referred to as “Armina.” The Assyrians named the region “Urartu” (“Arartu”), the Persians called it “Armina,” and the Hittites named it “Hayasa.”
The so-called “Urartian” language presented another challenge to the concept of Urartu. Linguists struggled to categorize this language with its unique vocabulary, phonetics, and grammatical structure, yet they successfully deciphered new inscriptions. The idea that Armenians in Armenia once spoke and wrote in a non-Armenian language seemed difficult to accept, leading some to reject historical connections between Urartu and Armenia and instead conceive of Urartu as a non-Armenian state.
In order to read the “Urartian” cuneiform in Armenian while preserving the content of the text, a key was needed. It was crucial that the lexical composition remained Armenian and that the content of the text was not changed arbitrarily.
The principle of phonetic correspondences was established as a reliable criterion for the correct decoding and reading of cuneiforms. Based on this principle, experts were able to find the true pronunciation of around a hundred cuneiform characters and decipher approximately 550 words, names, and place names with recognizable Armenian roots.
When the cuneiform was read with the new pronunciation, the meanings of the words were preserved. For example, “Biain” was read as “Van,” “Teishebaini” as “Tesavan,” “Artsibini” as “Artsvin,” and so on. This process helped restore the true pronunciation of the cuneiform texts.
The root composition of the “Urartian” language was found to be identical to Armenian, leading to the conclusion that there was no separate “Urartian” language. Instead, the cuneiforms represented an earlier form of the Armenian language, adapted to the Assyrian cuneiform code. This discovery further supports the historical connections between Urartu and Armenia and clarifies the linguistic relationship between the two cultures.
The concept of “Urartu” was challenged by the discovery of numerous words of Indo-European origin in cuneiform texts, as well as by the research of Hittite linguist Valery Khachatryan. In the mid-2nd millennium BC, Khachatryan showed that Hayasa occupied the entire territory defined by the Assyrians as the country of Nairi-Urartu. He constructed a map of the state of Hayasa, which closely resembled the famous map of Armenia by Anania Shirakatsi from the 7th century. This provided evidence against the concept of the Nairi-Urartu state.
The Hayasa archaeological site Metsamor, discovered in 1963, further supported the connection between Hayasa and the Ayrarat region of Armenia. The hieroglyphic writings found at Metsamor indicated an ancient Armenian origin, rather than any other culture.
The inscriptions of Darius confirmed that Urartu is equivalent to Armenia, and that the terms Hayasa, Nairi, Urartu, and Armenia are all interchangeable. The Hittite texts referred to a state in the Armenian Highlands as Hayasa, and when these texts disappeared, so did the term. The Assyrian inscriptions referred to states in the same territory using the terms Nairi-Urartu-Wayais (Hayais). When the Assyrian state and texts disappeared, these terms also vanished. The Persian term Armina emerged and was later transformed by the Greeks into “Armenia,” which then spread throughout Europe.
In conclusion, the terms Hayasa, Nairi, Urartu, and Armenia all refer to the same region and state in the Armenian Highlands. The concept of “Urartu” as a separate state was debunked through linguistic and archaeological evidence, as well as the research of Hittite and Assyrian inscriptions.
Vigen Avetisyan Based on an article by Suren Ayvazyan: Еще раз о фальш-термине «Урарту»
