Difference between revisions of "Urartu"

From armeniapedia.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{Armenian history}}
 
{{Armenian history}}
 
Biblical name Ararat - the Kingdom of Ararat or, in Assyrian, Urartu. Its native name was Biaini. The documented history of Urartu begins in 1275 BC, and ends early in the sixth century BC.
 
Biblical name Ararat - the Kingdom of Ararat or, in Assyrian, Urartu. Its native name was Biaini. The documented history of Urartu begins in 1275 BC, and ends early in the sixth century BC.
 +
 +
{{cquote|The [[Armenians]] according to Diakonoff, are then an amalgam of the [[Hurrian]] (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia.  After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part the languages it eventually replaced.  Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.<ref> “Armenians” in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn.  </ref>
 +
}}
  
 
== Culture ==
 
== Culture ==
Line 9: Line 12:
 
The distinctive artifacts associated with the kingdom of Urartu are normally assumed to constitute the material assemblage of a homogeneous culture. This article reviews the characteristics of these artifacts class by class, and argues that for the most part they are deliberate creations of an imperial government, not a broad spectrum of the east Anatolian population. Archaeological research on Urartu has focused on excavating fortresses, which are essentially state enclaves, rather than settlement sites. The model of Inca imperialism is invoked as an alternative to the presumption of cultural uniformity. The extent to which it applies and the issue of provincialism within the Urartian state can only be addressed by shifting the emphasis of Urartian archaeological studies toward the governed.
 
The distinctive artifacts associated with the kingdom of Urartu are normally assumed to constitute the material assemblage of a homogeneous culture. This article reviews the characteristics of these artifacts class by class, and argues that for the most part they are deliberate creations of an imperial government, not a broad spectrum of the east Anatolian population. Archaeological research on Urartu has focused on excavating fortresses, which are essentially state enclaves, rather than settlement sites. The model of Inca imperialism is invoked as an alternative to the presumption of cultural uniformity. The extent to which it applies and the issue of provincialism within the Urartian state can only be addressed by shifting the emphasis of Urartian archaeological studies toward the governed.
  
 +
== References ==
 +
{{reflist}}
 
== Websites ==
 
== Websites ==
 
*[http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/armenia/armenia.html Urartu/Armenia at Livius.org]
 
*[http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/armenia/armenia.html Urartu/Armenia at Livius.org]
  
 
[[Category:Armenian History]]
 
[[Category:Armenian History]]

Revision as of 02:07, 20 July 2007

Hayasa-Ararat/Urartu
UrartuH.jpg

Early Armenian history

Armenian history

Early History
Hurrians
Urartu
Hayasa
Nairi
Hurro-Urartian

Biblical name Ararat - the Kingdom of Ararat or, in Assyrian, Urartu. Its native name was Biaini. The documented history of Urartu begins in 1275 BC, and ends early in the sixth century BC.

The Armenians according to Diakonoff, are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.[1]

Culture

The civilizing influence of Ararat was widespread throughout the ancient world in the first millennium BC. It reached even such distant peoples (geographically and chronologically) as the Etruscans, the Greeks and the Achaemenid Persians (who were greatly influenced by the cultural heritage of the Kingdom of Ararat or Ayr-Ar-at). The Scythians and the Cimmerians and the newly established Iranians state, no doubt regarded the Armenian officials and army officers of Ararat as the representatives of one of the most highly civilized countries; and as prisoners of war or as soldiers serving in the armies.

Archeology

The distinctive artifacts associated with the kingdom of Urartu are normally assumed to constitute the material assemblage of a homogeneous culture. This article reviews the characteristics of these artifacts class by class, and argues that for the most part they are deliberate creations of an imperial government, not a broad spectrum of the east Anatolian population. Archaeological research on Urartu has focused on excavating fortresses, which are essentially state enclaves, rather than settlement sites. The model of Inca imperialism is invoked as an alternative to the presumption of cultural uniformity. The extent to which it applies and the issue of provincialism within the Urartian state can only be addressed by shifting the emphasis of Urartian archaeological studies toward the governed.

References

  1. “Armenians” in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn.

Websites