Armenian researchers have long decided for themselves that the so-called Urartian period is a part of Armenian history. Foreign scholars acknowledge this with some reservations.
If the question of whether the term “Urartu” can be used interchangeably with “Ararat” has already received broad acceptance, the idea of acknowledging the Urartians as simply the ancient Armenians is still quite far off in global scholarship.
In the Urartian inscriptions on the Van Rock, there is, of course, no mention of Urartu, and there never was. The country there is named Biaini (Biainili). It is considered to be a local self-designation with unclear etymology. The name of the city of Van and the eponymous lake probably derives from Biainili.
Armenian researchers have long understood that the so-called Urartian period is just a part of Armenian history. While foreign scholars might recognize this with some reservations, as in a famous Jewish joke, they still leave a residue. The residue of the idea that Urartu is something foreign, brought in by the Hurrians, Hittites, Luwians, etc., and therefore is not Ancient Armenia. Although, the ethnogenesis of the Armenians was already taking place during and even before it, but who knows exactly how and when nations appear – it’s quite a task to figure it out.
And this is despite the fact that before Urartu, in the same place, that is, on the Armenian Highland, the kingdom of Hayasa was located, which after the disappearance of Urartu calmly turned into Hayastan (Hayastan) and has been called so for at least two and a half thousand years.
How did the word “Armenia” come about? Experts believe that the toponym “Armenia” derives from the Hurrian name of the region adjacent to Melitene, Armi, located on the Armenian Highlands. This name, through the Aramaic ˊarmǝn-āiē, made its way into the Old Persian language. The appearance of the exonym “Armenia” is dated to the 6th century BC, or according to another version, in 2237–2200 BC, but this is still under discussion.
According to Khorenatsi, the ancient Greek name “Armenia” and the corresponding Old Persian toponym “Armina” came from the name of the Armenian king Aram, who was the father of Ara the Beautiful, but with a simple stroke of the pen by “internationalist” historians, he was transformed into a Urartian king. The name “Armina” first appeared in the Behistun Inscription (6th century BC) of Persian king Darius I (522–486 BC). Darius ordered this large inscription to be translated into many other languages, its text was sent to all provinces of the state and dependent countries. Even its papyrus scroll has survived in Egypt.
The Behistun Inscription
The decoding of the Behistun Inscription in Persia was carried out in the 1830s–40s by the English archaeologist, Assyriologist, and linguist Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895). It was in three languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. The Elamites – one of the ancient peoples of the East, lived in the northeast of the Persian Gulf from the 3rd millennium to the 6th century BC. Their language was for a long time the state language of Persia. When the Behistun Inscription was read, it turned out that the name of Armenia is written in the Old Persian part of the text – Armina (or Arminia), in Elamite – Harminuya (hаrminuya) and only in Akkadian – Urashu (the Babylonian variant of Assyrian Urartu) (Excerpts from the Behistun Inscription are cited from the book: F.H.Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, Leipzig, 1911, 1968).
Obviously, there cannot be three countries with different names at the same time, in the same place. Therefore, following simple logic, these are not three different countries, but just the ancient names of Armenia in three different languages. That is, taking this into account, it is clear to anyone studying without bias that Urartu is Armenia, just as Ararat is actually the Ararat Kingdom.
Indeed, in understanding the history of the ancient world, a significant role was played by so-called bilingual inscriptions. One such example is the Rosetta Stone, through which Champollion was able to begin deciphering ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
The Behistun inscription, composed in 522 BC, provides not only mentions of the country’s names in three languages, but also lists how the Armenians themselves were called in the 6th century BC in three languages. It tells us that a ruler of Armenian origin rebelled against the Persian king Darius I in Babylon.
This Armenian is called by the same root words: in Old Persian – armin, in Elamite – hаrmin, in Akkadian – urasht. For example, in the fourth column (§52) of the Persian part of the inscription, there is such a phrase: “A certain Armenian named Araka,” which in Old Persian sounds like this: «Araka nāma arminija», in the Elamite part – “Harakka hiše harminujara”, in Akkadian – “Arahu šúumšu úraštaja”.
Thus, in Persian, an Armenian was called – arminia, and the Akkadians – urashtaya (urartaya).
It turns out that the Persian trilingual inscriptions unequivocally and unambiguously assert that the Akkadians called Armenians urartaya, urashtaya, just as the Georgians called – somexi, the Persians, Elamites, and Greeks – armin(ia), hаrmin(ujara), armenos, etc. Hence, we can conclude that all the urartus mentioned in the Akkadian inscriptions are Armenians, and the kings, armies, and people are Armenian kings, Armenian armies, and the Armenian people. In another place, Araka the Armenian is called the son of haldi. The well-known Armenian historian Raphael Avetisovich Ishkhanyan (1922–1995) in his book “Questions of the Origin and Ancient History of the Armenian People” (Moscow, ID “Graal”, 2002) wrote that haldi or Khaldi are the forms of the name hayk-Hayk that have come down to us from the Neo-Hurrian.
It’s hard to say how Hayk was pronounced over 1000 years before Mashtots. Maybe tomorrow it will be revealed that the name of the supreme god of Urartu, Khaldi, is indeed an interpretation of the name of the Armenian progenitor, Hayk Nahapet.
However, there are already three essential elements: the name of the country, the commonality of the language, and the name of the people. Based on all of this, it becomes clear that the Urartians are simply one of the external names of the Armenians during the times of Urartu and for some time after it. The so-called Urartian period is just a part of Armenian history, which is not yet fully acknowledged by foreign scholars. But as they say, it’s only a matter of time.
In science, sooner or later, the viewpoint that is fully substantiated and relies on real facts always prevails, no matter how customary the previous theories were.
by Armen Petrosyan
Translated by Vigen Avetisyan
