Armenians, descendants of Sakson

According to Moses Khorenatsi (410-490 AD), the greatest Armenian historian, the first Armenian king was Parura Skayordi who ruled Armenia in the 7th century bc. Skayordi is an Armenian epithet which means "Saka son" or "son of the Scythian".

As I mentioned here: Scythian-Saka Empire (673-615 BC), in the 7th century bc, Scythians conquered Mannaean and Urartian kingdoms and established a large empire in the northwest of Iran. Their first emperor was Scythain Partitava, Greek Protothyes, Assyrian Partatua and Armenian Parura.

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 24-Oct-2007 at 20:11

I have a Persian translation of his book, in this book Haik seems to be just a Babylonian who migrated to the Ararat region in very old times, Khorenatsi mentions some of his descendants but suddenly ignores this legendary story and calls Parura Skayordi as the first real king of Armenia.

I think Haik could be the same Haldi, the national god of Urartu and Ararat region was in fact the ancient land of Urartu.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri in this book Haik seems to be just a Babylonian who migrated to the Ararat region in very old times

     Yep, the story says he witnessed the fall of the tower of Babylon, and after refusing to worship King Bel, he escaped north, where Bel followed him, and later died of an arrow shot by Haik.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri I think Haik could be the same Haldi, the national god of Urartu and Ararat region was in fact the ancient land of Urartu

     Yes, I have heard from many others who are familiar with history that Haik the patriarch became Haldi or Khaldi, the main god on the Urartian pantheon. Khaldi was regarded as the forefather of Urartians, and Haik the patriarch of Armenians. It is a type of ancestor worship which further links the cultures of Urartu and Armenia.


     Afterall, Urartu is just another name for the Ararat Confederation, which included the tribes of the Armenian Highland centered around Mt. Ararat, including Urartians and Armenians, among others.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri but suddenly ignores this legendary story and calls Parura Skayordi as the first real king of Armenia

     I have read that many of the late kings of Urartu were in fact Armenians. According to the Armenian history that I know, the first truly sovereign rulers of an Armenian state were the Yervanduni dynasty in 585 B.C. Some historians say they could have been around as early as the 7th century B.C., but definitely by 585 B.C. the Urartians were finished and there was an Armenian dynasty in the region.

     Does Khorenatsi state that Parura Skayordi was the first king of an Armenian state, or just ruled over the Armenians? Because others ruled over the Armenians before the Scythians, including Assyrians. And do you know what he says about the Yervanduni dynasty?

Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 15-Oct-2007 at 19:55

About the word "Armenia", I think it relates to "Irmin". According to Urartian inscriptions, one of the last kings of Urartu was Irmin (635-629 BC). As you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irmin Irmin means "strong, whole" in Old Saxon and was the Saxon God of war.

A seventh-century BC Scythian plaque which has been found in the north-west of Iran (the ancient land of Urartu).

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri let's see what Strabo (54 BC - 25 AD), one of the greatest Greek geographers and historians, says about Armenia: "Scythians acquired possession of the best land in Armenia, which they left named after themselves, Saksen

So what? Name similarities are fun, but they mean absolutely nothing by themselves.

Originally posted by Reginmund Yes, there are similarities between all human languages because they are all related, but this doesn't indicate any recent influences or connections. If you look into it you'll find several peoples across the world throughout history who share the same name, but to conclude on that basis that all these peoples are connected beyond being human however is such a historical fallacy you'd be a laughing stock at any university. A general and well-known rule among educated historians is to avoid all theories based on etymology; these are not accepted by the modern historical science and for good reason. This is a prime example of just such a theory.

Edited by Penelope - 21-Oct-2007 at 18:41

those are just two words, and Saxons are still closer to other Germanic tribes in language & customs than to indo-iranian nomads like scythians.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri He just mentions Parura and his eight successors (the last one is Tigranes) and then Parthian kings of Armenia.

     Well Parura was around in the 7th century B.C., and Tigranes (If he's talking about Tigranes the Great) died in 55 B.C. So there were only 8 kings in 600 years? This is the problem with taking Khorenatsi's history literally: he is inaccurate on many of the dates and successors (we can't blame him though, he lived around 1600 years ago). As inaccurate or biased as he may have been on certain aspects of the history, he still has given us a wealth of information from his time. And his bias is interesting because it shows us that Armenians had enough of a national identity that one of their historians wrote a history of their peoples, and made it as Armeno-centric as he could.


     Its actually very hard to say who the first Armenian king was. It depends on who you consider Armenian. The native tribes which inhabited the Armenian Highland had formed tribal confederations (like Urartu, and the Nairi and Hayasa which came before), so if you consider these tribal confederations as proto-Armenian states (they are to Armenians what the Etruscans are to Italians), then the first Armenian king or ruler might very well have ascended over 3,000 years ago. Afterall they have unearthed cities in Armenia which are 5,000 years old (Metsamor), and they built a "stone henge" there 7,000 years ago. I think it all depends on who you consider to be "Armenian". I think the rulers of the native Nairi and Hayasa tribes, which existed thousands of years prior to the Urartians themselves, and who passed their culture down to Armenians, can be considered Armenian kings more so than some Scythian who invaded from a foreign land (Parura, a Scythian, appears in Armenia the same time as the Scythian raids/invasions).

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri About the word "Armenia", I think it relates to "Irmin". According to Urartian inscriptions, one of the last kings of Urartu was Irmin (635-629 BC).

     There was in fact an Urartian king who ruled in the years you wrote (635-629), but his name wasn't Irmin, it was Erimena (eerily close to "Armenia"). Like I said before, its very possible that Armenian kings ruled the Urartian state in the last decades of its existance. That is why immediately after the Median and Scythian invasions around 612, we already see the beginnings of an Armenian dynasty (Yervanduni dynasty), which started developing around 612 during the fall of Urartu and was already an independent state no later than 585 B.C.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri A seventh-century BC Scythian plaque which has been found in the north-west of Iran (the ancient land of Urartu).

     Archaeologists have found a bunch of Etruscan goods (pottery, jewelry) in Armenia as well, but no one thinks that Armenians are descended from Etruscans. It just means the trading systems of the time were good enough to where goods could end up thousands of miles away from where they were made.

Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 21-Oct-2007 at 22:03

Originally posted by Styrbiorn How about "seax"? The word from which the people are named.

i would actually argue it was the other way round. why should a people name themselves after a weapon? i mean, did the Spanish named themselves after the Gladius Hispaniensis? the theory that the Saxons were named after the Seax is considdered as outdated nowadays.