Talk:Hayk

---

Older

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Orion/Christ

Several IPs have tried to add material concerning Hayk and Orion to this and related articles. Some of the edits pipe "Solar hero" to our article Sungod, others pipe the name Orion to ur article on the constellation. Some also say Hayk is compared to Christ in the Bible - I have no idea where that comes from. I'll do some editing probably tomorrow. I need to evaluate some sources, eg [3] which is by Vahan Kurkjian but that I can't find cited in GBooks, [4] Martiros H. Ananikean. Indo-European Publishing, [5] The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age a Wayne University Press book, [6] Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies which names the Armenian sun god: "The god-name Ara - the ancient Armenian Sun-god, the dying (departing) and resurrecting (returning) god of spring (as the Egyptian Osiris and Phrygian Attis) also correlates with Arev-Sun" and says "- the name of one of the two Patriarchs of all Armenians. (The first is Hayk who has given the names Hay and Hayastan by which Armenians call themselves and their country. The patriarch s celestial embodiment in Ancient Armenian notions is the stellar constellation Hayk. corresponding to Greek Orion.)" I'll look for more. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are further sources and info:

http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/armenians/names_p3.html

The main holiday remained in its former place, and as before, it was determined by observing the heliacal rising of the main star of constellation Hayk (Orion).

It was assumed that during this period Hayk/Orion (Father God) was absent, gone to the Dark (Underground) world (the star was below the horizon.) A festivity lasting a week was celebrated to the heliacal rising of this star.

Heliacal rising From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The heliacal rising (/hɪˈlaɪəkəl/, hi-LY-ə-kəl) of a star (or other body such as the moon, a planet or a constellation[1]) occurs when it first becomes visible above the eastern horizon for a brief moment just before sunrise, after a period of time when it had not been visible.[2]

Also:

http://www.tacentral.com/astronomy.asp?story_no=3

The festival is called Navasard, and it takes place on August 11 of this calendar , which is Navasard. That is the day Hayk defeated Bel, that day the first day Navasard 1, is known as the day of Areg or Arev (the Sun). This is all further explained in the first site I provided above this one. Also, the Armenian calendar page translates the Armenian names as I mentioned Areg or Arev is Sun.

One more info:

One of the greatest heroic Epics of the Armenian people is the great Cosmic Epic of Hayk -- the Forefather and establisher of the Armenian nation in third millennium BC. The Epic was written down by Mowses Xorēnac‛i -- the father of Armenian History. Xorēnac‛i, wrote down the epic in his History of Armenia in the fifth century, from the oral tradition of the ancient troubadours. The epic story tells us of Hayk [Orion], the leader of the nation of Armenia [where the solar cult of Orion originated and spread throughout the world]. The warrior-king organizes his forces against the invading forces of the tyrant Bel (Baal) of Babylon attacking from south, from Mesopotamia into the highlands of Ararat. The Great Armenian Calendar of Navasard records -- August 11, 2492 BC -- as the day of the cosmic battle [August 11 = the day of the solar eclipse... the light...after...darkness]...

66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but we need to stick to academic sources. A paper by Robert Hewson ""The Primary History of Armenia": An Examination of the Validity of an Immemorially

Transmitted Historical Tradition" says "Other traces of his cult as a divinity survived among the Christian Armenians; not only does he appear to have been the subject of religious veneration but he was of astrological significance as well, for Hayk was the name given by the Armenians to the constellation Orion." The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age says "The heroes of national legends often become deities, and Hayk was worshipped as a native god in the regions surrounding Lake Van. Some scholars identify him with the Urartian god Khaldi on mythological and linguistic bases.7 Another characteristic of ancient legendary heroes and demigods was that the popular imagination often transformed them into stars, which provided nightly evidence of their celestial existence. By virtue of his being a valiant prince of fine stature, “strong and accurate in drawing the bow,” and “a skillful archer,” Hayk became a counterpart of the Greek Orion, perhaps because, like Orion, Hayk had fine features and was a night hunter. No ancient records documenting Hayk’s apotheosis into a constellation survive, but in two instances in the Greek Bible that mention Orion, the fifth-century Armenian translators have replaced Orion with Hayk."pp31-32 and "(pronounced hai). Hayk derives from the Urartian deity Khaldi, whose divine attributes he originally assumed because of the volcanic nature of the Armenian highlands. Later, Hayk even acquired cosmogonic characteristics, and was identified with the constellation Orion. The well-known epic of Hayk’s fight against Bel provides substantial proof that Hayk and his people stood up against Bel and halted the unrestrained influx of Semitic peoples from the south." p65[7] Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The part about Orion being Hayk is already clear to us. In your talk page I pointed out the solar hero part, where it explains in the Orion mythology page. Can you mention that he is the solar hero or sun hero? Orion rises in the east with the sun, known to Greeks Helios. That's where the term heliacal rising comes from, in this case heliacal rising of Orion. So, can you add the solar hero part of it? You said you will on your talk when I made it clear regarding it. You were saying that sun god and solar hero are not the same, referring to in this case Orion Hayk as the solar hero rather than sun god. The link was directing to sun god page. 166.137.210.30 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just in case of misunderstanding, perhaps I should point out that "Orion rises in the east with the sun" is only true in early summer (in the Northern hemisphere), when the earth is at a suitable point in its year-long orbit around the sun. Six months later Orion is, broadly speaking, on the opposite side of the earth from the sun; that's why it's so very clearly visible at night from January to March. It carries on rising in the east, of course, but so does everything else that rises. NebY (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That is what I'm trying to say, and I mentioned Navasard the Armenian festival which refers to that specific time of the year where Orion joins with the sun , Greek Helios , and rises with the sun in the east . Now, not every star as you said rises in the east, whatever time of the year even, but only specific stars and constellations near the eclipitic plane. The Greek myth is referring to the specific time of the year where Orion joins the sun in the east. Doug, are you having trouble with the wording of the edit or? You are thinking how to mention solar hero, or give the association with the actual myth of Orion ? 166.137.210.37 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I've been confused about the constellation rising thing. I found[8] but was trying to figure out what you wanted to put on what page. Can you be more explicit? Offer some wording: One problem of course is that the sun only rises in the East for a short while, but as I said, I'm not sure what you are suggesting or why. As for the solar hero, I'll get that back in and as you can see I've been doing research. I am trying to get it all together so that it makes sense and isn't restricted just to the solar hero bit. One problem of course is that when Armenia was Christianized they Christianized the myths (as happened for instance in Ireland as well), and I'm trying to find what reliable sources say about that. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we agree on the astronomy - yes, only the constellations on the celestial equator rise exactly in the east, the rest rise from the east rather than the west. So can you clarify your view of Orion as a sun-god or solar hero? Our Wikipedia article does make a brief reference to that one myth that he was once healed by Helios, but that is just one myth among many; if anything, he is not just a hunter but a nocturnal hunter. Hesiod mentions the rising of the constellation with the sun as one of the convenient calendrical events of the year, but doesn't identify Orion with the sun either as a constellation or as a hero - all the constellations of the zodiac and many others have heliacal risings, after all. This is worrying me, because it seems as if you're identification of Hayk as solar depends on your identification of Orion as solar. NebY (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

NebY, if you read what I wrote and read the Orion mythology article completely , the answers you want are already there.

Doug, it's a few of the articles: this one, Hayk article, Orion constellation, and Armenian mythology. In your talk page you also also mentioned adding it in more than one article. If you also read what I mentioned it can clarify why I want it to mention solar hero. The festival of Navasard is on august 11 , about Hayk defeating Bel, and that info is mentioned on the Hayk article. We can mention there, or combine the comparative mythology section about the solar hero Hayk/Orion with the proper place of the specific date august 11 of that festival , referring to Hayk/Orion rising with the sun in the east at that specific time of the year. For that reason, I wanted to use the term "solar hero" or "sun god", referring to that specific festival about Hayk/Orion defeating Bel , his foe. The light defeating the darkness , to put it in other words. 198.228.216.41 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read what you wrote and the Orion articles. I've also been hunting on my bookshelves for the slightest description of Orion as a solar god or hero. Unless you have some other evidence that you think you've presented but have accidentally omitted, I'm ready to say quite firmly (as firmly as one can on such matters) that the Greeks did not regard Orion as a solar god or hero. The mention in one Wikipedia article of a heliacal rising does not mean the constellation is particularly associated with the sun; every celestial body we see in or near the ecliptic has a heliacal rising. Worse, look at what Hesiod actually says - well, at this translation: "Set your slaves to winnow Demeter's holy grain, when strong Orion first appears, on a smooth threshing-floor in an airy place." This is soon followed by "But when Orion and Sirius are come into mid-heaven, and rosy-fingered Dawn sees Arcturus, then cut off all the grape-clusters, Perses, and bring them home. Show them to the sun ten days and ten nights: then cover them over for five, and on the sixth day draw off into vessels the gifts of joyful Dionysus. But when the Pleiades and Hyades and strong Orion begin to set, then remember to plough in season: and so the completed year will fitly pass beneath the earth. But if desire for uncomfortable sea-faring seize you; when the Pleiades plunge into the misty sea to escape Orion's rude strength, then truly gales of all kinds rage." This is just basic use of one of the most visible and useful constellations to plan one's working year, no more. So, if you have nothing to add to what you've written above, can you now accept that we have no good reason to say the Greeks saw Orion as a solar god or hero? NebY (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

more on Hayk

A. J. Hacikyan, Editor, Gabriel Basmajian, Editor, Edward S. Franchuk are all editors of The Heritage of Armenian Literature: From the Oral Tradition to the Golden Age and I cannot find who wrote what. A quote from "The heroes of national legends often become deities, and Hayk was worshipped as a native god in the regions surrounding Lake Van. Some scholars identify him with the Urartian god Khaldi on mythological and linguistic bases.7 Another characteristic of ancient legendary' heroes and demigods was that the popular imagination often transformed them into stars, which provided nightly evidence of their celestial existence. By virtue of his being a valiant prince of fine stature, “strong and accurate in drawing the bow,” and “a skillful archer,” Hayk became a counterpart of the Greek Orion, perhaps because, like Orion, Hayk had fine features and was a night hunter. No ancient records documenting Hayk’s apotheosis into a constellation survive, but in two instances in the Greek Bible that mention Orion,8 the fifth-century Armenian translators have replaced Orion with Hayk."pp31-32 I suggest we add this as a quote, I'm not sure where. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting point is the word Orient (East, rising sun) and Orion. If you are not familiar with how others pronounce Orion, its actually pronounced how you say Orient, and not O'Ryan. In Armenian, Latin, and I even heard Japanese pronounce it same way as how you pronounce Orient without the t at the end, like Orien-t. Understand what im saying right? So, its also possible this Greek name Orion might not even be Greek to begin with. It could be an earlier form from Proto-Indo-European, as the root of Orion Or- is also Ar-, which is the Armenian root for sun, light etc. Orion is also known as 'coming forth as light', so it seems to make sense , when you mentioned Ara as the sun-god, the Armenian sun-god is Ar or Ara. So, like I said its possible the roots of this name Orion is something else with the root Ar- or Ur- , which in ancient records is associated with the sun and light. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I read what you wrote in Talk:Hayk. I didnt get your response here, I gave you further sources regarding Orion, and its association with the sun. Did you find more? You said you looked at other comparative myths besides Greek. The comparative method helps to notice the solar cult of Orion, as you said --> I've been trying to figure out and source the Orion sun thing and did find something maybe relevant but Eyptological. Can you mention somewhere on those pages I listed about Hayk/Orion associated with the sun (solar hero etc)? Can you use comparative myth explanation with the Greek or Egyptian astronomy and myth? Can you add this source with it?

Orion - He was the Sun-god of both the Egyptians and Phoenicians.

http://www.crystallotus.com/TheTransition/020.htm

Can you add this source in Hayk, Orion constellation, Armenian mythology articles, to mention Sun-god Orion (Hayk), or solar hero, or its association and link with the sun. That section in Hayk article that mentions Orion, is called "Comparative mythology", so we can mention Egyptian myths, we already have the Greek comparisons. But even by the Greek alone we can add the part in the Greek myth of Orion joining with helios the sun in the east. We can use that to mention Hayk is the solar hero , or joins with the sun in the east. I just want to get this bit of info on these articles, so people can get more understanding and idea of Orion (Hayk). The astronomical side of this, and further on the myth. Did you also notice the part i was mentioning of August 11? Thats in the Hayk article, that day is known as the day of the sun, the first day of Navasard , equal to August 11. Thats when Orion (Hayk) joins with the sun in the east. At different times in history, Orion rose with the sun in the east at different seasons. Now, its at the summer solstice. The point is at a certain time of the year, or certain season, once a year, Orion joins with the sun in the east. So, can you mention that bit of it on those articles i already listed? You said you would add that part few days ago already. Thank you. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this also on my talk page:

Orion constellation, solar hero

I need 48 hours as I'm busy in real life. See my talk page response. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out and source the Orion sun thing and did find something maybe relevant but Eyptological

Yes, so are you ready now to add solar hero with Orion? 66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

One more interesting info. If you look at the Armenian cross-stones khachkar's, the symbolism and art also represents Orion (Hayk) and the sun. The cross on the khachkars (cross-stones) is Orion, and you also have a sun-disc below it on the cross-stones. The khachkars are also put to face towards the east. Its also interesting you mentioned Christian era times with Ireland. Ireland also has cross-stone arts, and possibly the symbolism again is linked with Orion the cross and the sun, as you find those on the Celtic crosses. There is much more info, but you also see the 3 stars of Orion as the trinity. The idea of trinity, and many other Christian teachings are pre-Christian ideas. Can we use the above source: Orion - He was the Sun-god of both the Egyptians and Phoenicians.

http://www.crystallotus.com/TheTransition/020.htm or this one: There is also links with Mithras as the solar hero Orion:

Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God - By Michael Speidel

http://books.google.com/books?id=7-YUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=solar+hero+mithras+orion&source=bl&ots=V2GtApCu1W&sig=otcyiKRo_515ZkA_B_MtP5KkCbA&hl=en&ei=vKaTTrS3FMTgiAKSl7zqBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=solar%20hero%20mithras%20orion&f=false

It mentions that both Mithras and Orion are solar heroes. It explains because they go to the east to meet the sun god. Further interesting note on this, Armenians also worshipped Mithras in pre-Christian times known as Mihr (Mitra-Mithras). 66.214.143.68 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.143.68 (talk)

Ok, I copied the discussion in talk:Hayk. Did you read it all ? Can you add the above sources with Orion's association with the sun? Mythologically the term is used as solar hero or sun god. It actually means Orion joining with the sun in the east astronomically. Makes sense now? Thank you. 166.137.210.34 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Orion was never worshipped by the Egyptians. People seem to be confusing this with the worship of Osiris. Too many authors seem to conflate the constellation (known by the Egyptians as Sah I believe) with the the mythological figure Orion. None of these websites meet our criteria at WP:RS and a lot of the stuff you have written is what we call original research, see WP:NOR. I can't find sources calling Hayk a sun god - he may have been some sort of volcano god as Khaldi was. I've looked at Speidel and have a problem. He is not a specialist in Greek mythology - I would only use specialists in Greek mythology for Greek mythology. But that doesn't matter as he also does not mention Hayk. Sources need to be from recognised experts and state that Hayk was a solar hero. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but what was it in the Egyptalogical comparison you said earlier that you found connecting Orion with sun? And we can state the astronomical significance , yes? Osiris is later shown in Dendera zodiac as Orion. The comparative mythology section of Hayk article we can show the astronomical side of it and use Osiris's link with Ra the sun god , yes ? You understand my point? Orion rising in east with the sun astronomical info. The Wikipedia article on Osiris link with Orion has this source: Oxford Guide: Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology, Edited by Donald B. Redford, p302-307, Berkley, 2003, ISBN 0-425-19096-X for its link with Orion you see ? We can mention the astronomy side of it, because in Orion mythology article we have Hesiod mentioning Orion rising and setting with the sun to reckon the year ? You see? And as I said , we have comparative mythology section in Hayk to state that. I don't see any issue with this. 166.137.210.35 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Osiris being represented by both the sun and the constellation Orion means absolutely nothing for Hayk. Read WP:SYNTH -- we do not connect two different statements from two different sources to arrive at a single statement that neither source makes alone. You need a source that specifically says Hayk was a solar god, solar hero, or connected with the sun in some way, not a source that says anything about Osiris, Mithras, or anyone else, but specifically Hayk. If it's not about Hayk, it's irrelevant. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel I need to state this again : We can mention the astronomy side of it, because in Orion mythology article we have Hesiod mentioning Orion rising and setting with the sun to reckon the year ? You see? And as I said , we have comparative mythology section in Hayk to state that. I don't see any issue with this. 166.137.210.35 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian, you are incorrect , and my answer to that is what I said just now right above. The comparative mythology section compares other myths with Hayk . You see? 166.137.210.35 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What Hesiod wrote about Orion has absolutely nothing to do with Hayk, unless you can present a source connecting the two. The section you mention cites sources that explicitly mention both Hayk and other figures. it does not cite one source that discusses Hercules, and then a second source comparing Hayk, and then make up the conclusion from there.

So, you are wrong -- again, read WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean, are we going to say that Hayk is a deer being torn apart by hunting dogs? The Rig Veda describes the constellation of Orion as a deer being chased by hunting dogs (Holay, P. V. "Vedic astronomers". Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India 26: 91–106). This is why you have to have sources that specifically make connections, and why editors do not make any original connections that are not explicitly stated in the source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Egyptian thing was just about the constellation, irrelevant here as it didn't mention Hayk. Editors can't do comparative mythology, that's original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Doug, what is the problem with mentioning the astronomical side of this? Hayk is already stated as Orion, and the mythology article states Hesiod's astronomy of Orion rising with the sun to reckon the year. I don't see a problem there? 166.137.210.49 (talk)

The constellation-as-Hayk and the constellation-as-Orion are two different mythological concepts, even if they refer to the same physical group of stars. And for the third time I've said it (I'm sure other people have said it as well), read WP:SYNTH. We do not combine statements from two sources into something that neither source states. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm saying there is no problem mentioning astronomy , since Orion mythology article mentions some astronomy of it. 166.137.210.16 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian, I noticed you didnt read carefully what I wrote above concerning the solar Hayk-Orion calendar, and it's specific link with the rising sun. 166.137.210.29 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Tour Armenia website

Another issue - how is the TourArmenia Guide Book or the tourarmenia website a reliable source? Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably isn't. I was focusing more on getting the right page to make sure it actually said what it claimed instead of checking on its reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Doug, what determines one source being more reliable than the other? What I'm saying is, what makes the source provided for Zeus comparison with Hayk reliable, and not other sources which I mentioned to you of the sun god or solar hero Orion? Please do not take these against me personal. We already went through the astronomical knowledge of this. 166.137.210.20 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What determines one source being more reliable than the other? What I'm saying is, what makes the source provided for Zeus comparison with Hayk reliable, and not other sources which I mentioned to you of the sun god or solar hero Orion? We already went through the astronomical knowledge of this. The Michael Speidel source [9], why is that not considered reliable? I find him sourced many places on Wikipedia. Since Armenians worshipped Mithras/Mihr in pre-Christian times, can we atleast state that somewhere and use Michael Speidel's source that he was the solar hero Orion, which as we see Hayk again linked to it. Hayk or Orion, or Mithras, whatever name we want to call it by, the astronomy is found in ancient Armenian stone arts, petroglyphs. We see some of them show the archer Orion killing the Bull (Taurus), the same story is in the myth of Mithras slaying the Bull. Michael Speidel [10] saw the comparison correctly. This is also besides the fact both of them join with the sun Helios in the east after the defeat of the enemy, the bull taurus. The story of Hayk and Bel is similar, you noticed this? Hayk kills Bel, but the timing is based on Hayk-Orion joining with the sun in the east again. So, Im asking again, can we use the above 2 sources I provided here? What determines them being reliable or not, its not just ones personal feelings on a source from another is it? The tacentral.com [11] is not unreliable on the Armenian calendar, and the Armenian calendar of Navasard is found in a lot of sites, I already gave you another one from Talk:Hayk[12]. The Armenian calendar of Navasard based on Hayk - Orion linked with the sun to start off the new year in ancient festival is advanced, so much that it has even the hours of the day named. Armenians were astronomers and they made an advance calendar. What tacenral has on the astronomy is correct, and it shouldnt be unreliable, just cause someone feels it is. 66.214.143.68 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, a website that is focused on advertising (like Tour Armenia) is not as reliable as a site that focuses on academics. Tour Armenia is not concerned with good research, they're concerned with encouraging tourism. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Tour Armenia would be a tertiary source, getting their information from secondary sources. If what Tour Armenia says is correct, there will be academic sources backing it up. If there are no academic sources backing it up, it's not correct as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

WP:RS, in the section "Questionable sources", identifies sites that are "that are promotional in nature [...] are generally unsuitable..."

And as Doug said earlier, Michael Speidel is not a specialist in Greek mythology. He might as well be a potato farmer. There's also the problem that the book does not discuss Hayk at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier , if Michael Speidel is not reliable , why does Wikipedia have a dozen of his sources used? 166.137.210.43 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In what context? And are his claims presented alone, or with discussion about them from other scholars? Since his specialization is in Greco-Roman military history, citing him in Cornuti or Tiberius Claudius Maximus is appropriate. When his idea is mentioned at Mithraic mysteries, they're only given one sentence and treated as only his claim (not a fact). Speidel might even be appropriate for discussing how Roman soldiers worshiped Mithras, but not the origins of the cult, or even its deeper theology. And if there are inappropriate citations, then they need to be fixed. It's not like Doug and I can read the whole of the site every second of every day and find every single thing, and just because something has slipped by doesn't justify other things slipping by. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indra?

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)

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)

Mount Ararad or Mount Ararat?

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)

Hayk/King Bel

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)

What does this mean?

Part of the text reads as follows: "One of Hayk's most famous scions, Aram (whose name Moses purports to be the origin of the name Armenia[15]), settled in Eastern Armenia from the Mitanni kingdom (Western Armenia), when Sargon II mentions a king of part of Armenia who bore the (Armenian-Indo-Iranian) name Bagatadi (which, like the Greek-based "Theodore" and the Hebrew-based "Jonathan," means "god-given").[16][verification needed]" Starting from "when Sargon II mentions......", I don't get it. This looks like someone threw in that line for no reason or he doesn't know english. Ok, you are telling me that Aram moved from Western Armenia to Eastern Armenia. Then what happened? 21:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmelkon (talk • contribs)