Talk:Hayk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Armenia Portal Hayk is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.

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)

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)

You guys cant just remove anything you feel like. Haik is in place of Orion in the Armenian translation of the Bible. What, you need a reference of the Bible and verse or something. Go look it up its in Job 9:9 and Job 38, and in Amos chapter 5 Ararat arev 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Make sure to put inthe Orion_constellation|Orion link. The author were going to reference mentions it. Ararat arev 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 2492 2 Unclear sentence 3 Hayasa -- Hayk 4 historicity

[edit] 2492

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)

[edit] Unclear sentence

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)

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)

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)

no, no, wait. Hayk has no interpretatio graeca at all, because he only appears with Khorenatsi, well into the Common Era. If anything, Nimrod and/or Marduk in the interpretatio graeca are/is Orion. That in Armenian, the Orion constellation is known as "Hayk" confirms the link, and is, so to speak, an interpretatio armenica. --dab (𒁳) 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But we still don't have any source identifying Orion with Nimrod / Marduk. All we have is the Armenian tradition identifying Orion with Nimrod / Bel's slayer. Til Eulenspiegel 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, we need a decent source. The confusion reflects the situation of a divine parricide. Marduk began his career (like Zeus) as a youthful slayer of the god father. And then in turn became the supreme god himself. Bel is of course the "lord" slain, but the slayer in turn becomes "lord" (Theogony) dab (𒁳) 15:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

yes, the article was probably mistaken about Marduk. Jewish Encyclopedia:

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)

The way I read it, Hayk is the one who killed Nimrod, we don't have any source suggesting that Hayk IS Nimrod. Til Eulenspiegel 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Orion-Nimrod part is easy: George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, has (p. 154):

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)

right, I found the ultimate source for this now, The Chain of Arrows: The Diffusion of a Mythical Motive, by R. Pettazzoni Folklore (1924)[1] here, reference is made to a connection of Nimrod and Gilgamesh, Nimrod and Marduk, and even William Tell. Now we have a connection Nimrud-Orion, Nimrud-Marduk, as well as Orion-Hayk. I admit there is no direct comparison Hayk-Nimrud so far, just via Orion. I daresay that's enough to point out that both are heroic archers, that's not a very strong claim after all. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hayasa -- Hayk

Samuelian[2] 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)

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)

there is no way a Hittite "H" could have survived as an Armenian "H". If it was "ay" instead of "hay", it would fit at least, but you cannot build etymologies spanning 2000 years based on a syllable "ay", it doesn't get any more far-fetched than that. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

look, what was a 'p' in 500 BC came to be a 'h' in 500 AD. What was a 'h' in 500 BC was lost without a trace by historical times. Hittite 'h' didn't survive at all, since Hittite was extinct. Assuming that "Hayasa" was a self-designation of said Hayasa, and that these evolved into the Armenians, we would at best be left with 'ayk', not 'hayk'. The point is that Armenian nationalist historiography builds entire edifices on stuff like "ay" sounding like "hay". This is once again "skeleton theory" territory. WP:ENC says we shouldn't go into it. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

see User_talk:Dbachmann#Hayasa: we shouldn't shun it, we should treat it for what it is, and not for something it isn't. I think you are wrong about the Soviet (not that it matters here): they did embrace connections in ancient history if it furthered a "brotherhood of peoples". e.g. the Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugric unities are today harshly contested by Baltic and Hungarian nationalists because the Soviets endorsed them, even though they are perfecly mainstream also without Soviet academia :-) dab (𒁳) 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] historicity

This is a quote from Robert Hewsen about this figure. He says:

Hayk. The Armenians call themselves Hayk' (sing. Hay), and Hayk is regarded as the eponymous progenitor of their race. Originally a divine figure, under the influence of Christianity he was reduced to "one of the giants" and was made out to be a son of Thogarma.

Robert H. Hewsen. "The Primary History of Armenia": An Examination of the Validity of an Immemorially Transmitted Historical Tradition. History in Africa, Vol. 2. (1975), pp. 91-100.

This kind of does not support the claims of some local historians who believe that Hayk was a real person. The above work is available in JSTOR. Grandmaster 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes? I am not aware we report any claim that he "was a real person". This is an article on a legendary figure. dab (𒁳) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Movsessian's view seems to be reported, and properly attributed. Til Eulenspiegel 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

right, sorry. Hardly "properly", though. Who is S. Der Movsessian and why should we feel compelled to report on his views? dab (𒁳) 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I provided this quote is that the current version of the article says:

S. Der Movsessian believes that Hayk was "an historical person" who was later deified and worshipped as Deus Armenicus.[citation needed]This view has been endorsed by S. Matikian, a Mekhitarist of Vienna, etc

I think that if the view of these people is reported, the mainstream view should be reported as well. Grandmaster 08:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

you are right. We should remove this pending proper citation. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

our source is apparently this page, which sounds reasonable enough, but which unfortunately doesn't give its own sources in turn. dab (𒁳) 14:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be good to know if any prominent experts support this view. But since we are to report all existing views, I think we might as well report the mainstream views of international scholars to maintain balance and objectivity. Grandmaster 07:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)