User:Liberatium

The consept of Armanisation of Urartu-range of theories that Urartu was an ancient Armenian State, wholly or mainly inhabited by ethnic Armenians, who spoke on the Armenian language. Concepts of Urartu Armenian affiliation are published primarily in Armenia, most often in popular literature, and the global scientific community rejected as unscientific and unprofessional. ^[1]. A number of researchers who studied the development of Armenian history, believe that the emergence of such concepts was due to political rather than scientific considerations. ^[2]. Science separates the history of Urartu and Armenia, believing that the Armenians are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia. ^[3]

Background

Assumptions about the «Proto-Armenian» Urartu origin appeared in the XIX century, after the European specialists first discovered in the territory of the Armenian plateau evidence the existence of the state of Urartu. ^[4] This assumptions also contributed to the fact that some ancient, and following them some medieval historians joined Urartian royal dynasty of Armenia. ^[5] Further research Urartu, the development history of Urartu, the study of the Urartu language scholars were forced to drop these assumptions. ^[6]

By the end of World War II, the Armenian SSR there were hopes for the return of Armenian lands lost by the events of the First World War and a political necessity to reaffirm the rights of Armenians in those lands. The initiative was officially supported by the Moscow. From this period, the Armenian historiography appear few reasonable historical work, showing autochthonous of Armenians in the Armenian highlands. Over the years, the trend of appearance of the Armenians in the region escalated, as the first Armenian public education, usually referred to as «Hayasa», is increasingly grown in size, leaving fewer and fewer places in the historical time and space to Urartu.

In the sixties the first work, it is alleged that the Armenian state of Urartu was written by Armenian geologist Suren Ayvazyan. Scientists have recognized the work Ayvazyan frivolous and unscientific, and his attempts to translate the texts without Urartian language education naive.Nevertheless Ayvazyan articles began to appear in the popular press, although the scientists clearly pointed to the gross errors, as well as the deliberate falsification of his work. By the eighties the idea of Ayvazyan becoming increasingly popular and inspired a professional historian Valeriy Khachatryan. He has published in scientific journals, a series of articles by associating with Proto-Armen Nairi, for which he was criticized and ridiculed by the Russian orientalist I.M. Diakonoff from the Armenian as well as Moscow's scientific journals. At the same time, Armenian bibliographer R. Ishkhanyan began to make similar S. Ayvazyan concept, which is already in the popular press. Happened in those years the restructuring of the Soviet Union raised a wave of nationalism in Armenia and the aggravation of the Karabakh issue - all these factors render a purely scientific discussion on the pages of popular print media in Armenia, which won the most popular point of view. ^[2]. One of the followers Ishkhanyan, for example, wrote: «The Book Ishkhanyan - call. Call-old policy of the Turkish (Ottoman and Azeri) focused on the extraction of Armenians from their homeland »

Criticism of Armenisation concept

In general, the concept of Armenistion of Urartu considered unscientific and unprofessional.^[1] Revisionist concept after its re-emergence in the second half of the twentieth century have been criticized by historians criticized in Soviet Armenia, and beyond. For example, academics, B.N. Arakelyan, G.B. Dzhaukyan and G.H. Sarkisian said that «strongly reject the unscientific notion that there is no Urartian language and the state Urartu does not exist and the Urarteans were the Armenians. These provisions, grossly distort the historical reality, in recent years were in particular on the public press of the republic several amateurs who are not specialists in this field of historical science » ^[7]. These concepts criticized also by Russian scientists, such as Academician B. Piotrovsky ^[6][8] and the Professor I.M. Diakonoff ^[9]. According to academician Piotrovsky «you can not go on the ancient East, the direct ancestors of modern people. From the powerful nations of Front Asia is a great cultural heritage and ethnic minor»