Talk:Hayk

message: Can it be that the first name of Gayk Bzhishkyan (Гайк Бжишкян) is a Russian corruption/transliteration of Haik? If not, then does it mean anytion else? mikka (t) 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. There is no H in Russian so H is substituted by G (Г) or KH (Х). Hitler is Gitler, but for example Heil ends up as Kheil. --Eupator 23:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You need to cite reliable sources. Original research is prohibited in Wikipedia.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: I want to know the origin of the 2492 date. Moses himself gives no dates, as you can see in this Russian edition. The absolute dates must be extrapolations by later authors, based on the chronicle of Jerome. According to Jerome, Ninus was a son of Belus, and ruled in the 21st century BC. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a theory by Ghevont Alishan (19th century). That period in history in that region has very scarce information, which sadly makes it impossible to give a solid date of the Dyutsaznamart, all we can do is guess. There's written evidence of a King Belu of Assyria in it's early period, before 2025 BC. He was around the middle of the list of those early rulers, so any year between 2600 BC and 2500 BC (or close enough to that, like Alishan's 2492 BC date) is just as good of a guess (taking sometime between 2700 and 2600 BC as the origin of Assur). The rulers of that list didn't leave much evidence behind for us to analyse and get a somewhat solid answer, all solid and verifiable history with a small margin of error in that area starts with the Akkadians. Ruben4493 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2492

message: I am trying to make head or tails of this rather unclear sentence:
"Hayk, the heroic archer of Khorenatsi is reminiscent of Marduk, whose arrow slew Bel because of his rebellion against the gods, identified with Nimrod, and in the interpretatio graeca with Orion."
As far as I can research, Bel and Marduk are the same, and Nimrod is the one who has been identified with both.  It seem the problem can be corrected simply by moving one clause , thus:
"Hayk, the heroic archer of Khorenatsi, whose arrow slew Bel because of his rebellion against the gods, is reminiscent of Marduk, identified with Nimrod, and in the interpretatio graeca with Orion."
Is this what was meant? Til Eulenspiegel 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, that's not right either... Bel and Nimrod were both identified with Marduk, not Hayk, so it should probably read something like "Hayk, the heroic archer of Khorenatsi, slew Bel because of his rebellion against the gods, who is reminiscent of Marduk, also identified with Nimrod, and in the interpretatio graeca with Orion." Til Eulenspiegel 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... One more time... Hayk is the one identified with Orion in the interpretatio graeca; Bel or Nimrod are both identified with Marduk... The Nimrod article mentions that Nimrod is identified with Orion, but this is uncited and seems to reflect the confusion... So a more correct reading then is "Hayk, the heroic archer of Khorenatsi, slew Bel because of his rebellion against the gods, who is reminiscent of Marduk, also identified with Nimrod. In an interpretatio graeca, Hayk is identified with Orion."  Til Eulenspiegel 14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure about inferring that much of a synthesis, we would need to quote an RS that makes those connections.  Also, if there is such a tradition about Marduk slaying another god, it isn't mentioned in his article.  It does remind me of the tradition of Cronos and Uranus, though. Til Eulenspiegel 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Some among that sinful generation even wanted to war against God in heaven (Sanh. 109a, and the passage from the Sibylline Books iii. 100, cited by Josephus, l.c.). They were encouraged in this wild undertaking by the fact that arrows which they shot into the sky fell back dripping with blood, so that the people really believed that they could wage war against the inhabitants of the heavens ("Sefer ha-Yashar," Noaḥ, ed. Leghorn, 12b). According to Josephus and Pirḳe R. El. xxiv., it was mainly Nimrod who persuaded his contemporaries to build the Tower, while other rabbinical sources assert, on the contrary, that Nimrod separated from the builders
It is thus Nimrod/Nebo, the son of Marduk, who shoots god. Marduk belongs to an older generation, and slew a dragon, not a father deity. It is presumably correct to state that Orion is the interpretatio graeca of Nimrud, and Hayk is the interpretatio armenica of both Nimrud and Orion. Marduk doesn't enter into the equation. We still need a good source, but that sounds about right now. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: the funny "generational" (Uranus-Cronus-Zeus) thing is that Nimrud slays Bel, but the Bel slain by Hayk is in fact Nimrud. We have two independent myths, Nimrud slaying Bel with an arrow, and Hayk slaying Nimrud-Bel with an arrow. What we still need a source for is that Orion is really an "interpretatio graeca" of Nimrud, but what we have is that all three (Nimrud, Orion, Hayk) are heroic archers. dab (𒁳) 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting "the myth of Nimrod slaying Bel" from?  I have never encountered such a thing anywhere. Til Eulenspiegel 15:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Orion bears in Arabiam astronomy the name El Jabbar, or "the giant". The Arabic Jabbar is the equivalent of Hebrew gbr, which is the epithet applied to Nimrod in Gen. 10:8. The idenfitication of Nimrod with Orion is noted by Greek writers (John of Antioch fr. 3, Chron. Pasch., John of Malala, Cedrenus etc.) Orion is a "mighty hunter" even in Homer. 
Nimrud shooting God is an Islamic / Druze tradition. It's easy to google,  but I failed to find a good reference just now. --dab (𒁳) 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like Pettazzoni subscribed to diffusionism, which Franz Boas himself eventually is supposed to have given up on.  You need a more modern source than 1924 before you can consider this settled.
4.249.48.184 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Samuelian gives "some historians" who have "linked" the names as
:G. A. Kapantsyan, Khajasa - kolybel' armjan: Etnogenez armjan i ix nachal'naja istorija (Yerevan,  1947); Lang, Armenia, 114;  see also, Eduard L. Danielian, "The Historical Background to the Armenian  State Political Doctrine," 279-286 in Nicholas Wade, Armenian Perspectives (Surrey, UK, 1997) 279,  citing E. Forrer, "Hajassa-Azzi," Caucasia, 9 (1931), and P. Kretschmer, "Der nationale Name der  Armenier Haik," Anzeiger der Acad. der Wiss. in Wien, phil.-his. Klasse (1932), n. 1-7; and Ghapantsyan  (1947);
The "some historians" turn out to be one G. A. Kapantsyan, 1947, idenfified as "Armenian  State Political Doctrine" by reviewers. "and Ghapantsyan  (1947)" cited by Samuelian as a "second" reference is apparently  identical to Kapantsyan (1947) (sheesh).
Etymologies by actual linguists, Samuelian prefers to treat under "but see" in his footnote,  I. M. Diakanov, The Pre-History of the Armenian People (Delmar, NY: Caravan Books,  1984), 129 derives hay from Hatiyos,  while the standard view seems to connect PIE *poti, which yields Armenian  hay (*pater –  Arm. hayr); Armen Petrosian,  Arami ar’aspelě hndevropakan ar’aspelabanut’yan hamatekstum ew hayots' azgatsagman khndirě (Van  Aryan 1997) 151. I think we can safely drop the "Hayasa" connection as nonsense (or keep it around as a curiosity) --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any sources in front of me, and would like to research this more when I get a chance to refresh my memory, but I would venture to say there may well be multiple sources who have suggested some kind of connection between 'Hayastan' (and 'Haykh' being the older native name for Armenia) on one hand, with the early entity of 'Hayasa' that Hittite records put roughly near the very same area. I have heard of more far-fetched ideas, anyway.  I would think it is at least significant as a coincidence, that in the very same vicinity where there is a people still calling themselves Hay-, there was a people in slightly more remote antiquity known as "Hayasa" to the Indo-Europeans; if some certain groups of scholars have ever specifically written their stuff to try and discourage people from thinking about such a connection, that is also relevant and we should report and cite that too. Til Eulenspiegel 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your argument; Armenian is not thought to be directly derived from Hittite, is it?  We know little about the language of this Hayasa entity, but if the Hittites had perhaps called them something approximating what they called themselves, then wouldn't it be irrelevant what the Hittite 'h' "survived as", since it is not a direct ancestor of anything?  It always raises a red flag with me whenever groups of scholars assert absolute certitude in the absence of recorded facts, where there can be only hypotheses, then proceed to apply ostracisation tactics on other groups of scholars until lo and behold, the hypothesis becomes a certainly known "fact".  That isn't the way hypotheses are supposed to become facts. Til Eulenspiegel 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know much about "Armenian nationalist historiography", but don't see why it or indeed any historiography should be fully shunned without even acknowledging its existence.  The article now sort of implies that it is a Soviet theory, but I had thought the Soviets were the first ones actively trying to discourage identifying modern peoples' history with the people of ancient times, all in the name of some kind of globalism; that ran up against problems when they had trouble explaining where modern people were descended from, if not from ancient people. Til Eulenspiegel 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayasa -- Hayk

message: I have an issue with the following:
"Nevertheless, Hayk and Haig are usually[how?] connected to hay (հայ) and hayer (հայեր, the nominative plural in Modern Armenian), the self-designation of the Armenians.
Hayk would then be an aitiological founding figure, like e.g. Asshur for the Assyrians, Indra for the Indians, etc."''
It seems a bit silly. Indra is not the origin of the name India, the Greek/Latin name India comes from Persian Hindush, which comes from Sanskrit saindhava/sindhu. The word sindhuH (river/stream/ocean) comes from the dhAtu syand (flow) whereas indraH comes from edh/endh (growth), hence why there's a mantram which states "ativishwaM vavakShitha" (you have grown far past all). 
If Wikipedia absolutely must include something along those lines, the one should change it to Bharataḥ for the Indians, keeping in mind that the Latin term India wasn't even used as a "self-designation" until after the Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British trading systems were established and the Persian term Hindustan was not used as a "self-designation" until after the Turk invasion. Unfortunately, I can't change it myself since the article is locked. Jdhaliwal175 (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, since it was unsourced, and was probably added by the blocked individual detailed here. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Indra?

message: In the Folklore section, it is stated:
:"Hayk emigrated to the region near Mount Ararad.[8] Hayk relocated near Mount Ararat"
Is Ararad a misspelling? Does it need to be corrected?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jensenr629 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount Ararad or Mount Ararat?

message: This is folklore, but even so the idea that a battle between Hayk and someone else took place after Hayk's dynasty makes no sense. In any case, the source doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:RS. Besides the fact that Russell's work was in 2 books and the citation doesn't say which one, and the fact that I can't find even a King Bel mentioned in either, if this is significant we should be able to find clearly reliable sources making the same statement. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hayk/King Bel