Armenians

The Armenian uplands on the basis of numerous and various ethnic and language elements. There are two main versions of the Armenian ethnogenesis, one of which (the migratory mixed hypothesis) is dominating in world historical science as it is supported by the greatest number of authoritative world experts. According to the main version, the ethnogenesis of Armenians occurred during the period since the end of the II millennium BC to the IV—II century BC as a result of ethnic dissolution of small protoarmenian Indo-Europeans migrating from the West in the massif of partially related Indo-Europeans — luviyets and native hurritov, urartov and hattov, occupying the Armenian uplands. The new ethnos owing to certain circumstances kept the protoarmenian language of Indo-European ethnic minority in a basis. In the Armenia the autochthonic version of the Armenian ethnogenesis which generally is based on various "hayassky" hypotheses according to which ethnic Armenians occupied the Armenian uplands since much earlier period has the greatest distribution. Mythological versions of the Armenian ethnogenesis are rejected by modern science. In process of further scientific studying of antiquities of the Armenian uplands it became clear that constructions around Van are signed by urartsky tsar Menua in not Indo-European urartsky language close to hurritsky, there was a big array of archaeological data, the history of the nearby states cleared up: Urartu, Hettsky empire and Mitanni. It became clear that appearance of Armenians — Indo-Europeans on language — in the territory of Urartu instead of not Indo-European urartiyets has to be somehow explained, and as the main version the hypothesis of resettlement of part of frigiyets to the east, on the Armenian uplands, right after disintegration of Urartu at a turn of the VII—VI century was accepted BC. This hypothesis, it seems, was confirmed by Herodotus's message that Armenians settled out from frigiyets and the message Evdoksa Rodosskogo that frigiyets and Armenians speak one language.
The migratory hypothesis with enthusiasm was apprehended in the Armenian diaspora which was strongly concerned during this period by intentions of Turkey and Azerbaijan to create the uniform state in the Caucasus. Political advantage of a migratory hypothesis during this period was that it obviously allocated Armenians from other people of the Caucasus with the isolated Indo-European origin.
The migratory hypothesis was fixed in world historical science, having undergone in the second half of the XX century a number of specifying modifications and having turned into the migratory mixed.Sources of antique time (or earlier period) are unknown to researchers in which Armenians would report something about the history. Also there are no authentic data on the Armenian writing before emergence in the V century AD of the Armenian alphabet. The first Armenian texts known for the scientist, belong to the V century. From them the main thing is "the History of Armenia" Movsesa Horenatsi. Also it isn't revealed archaeological traces of the Armenian city culture or any fundamental constructions before the I millennium BC, in the territory of east Turkey (where areas are well surveyed by not all), in the territory of Armenia where searches were conducted very carefully.
Movses Horenatsi among the first data on Armenia provides the list of the Armenian tsars, beginning from Paruyr, son Skayordi. From the linguistic point of view clearly that names of the tsars following Paruyr, given by Movses Horenatsi — Parthian by origin and, therefore, have to belong to an era of contacts between Armenians and Parfiyey not earlier than the III century BC therefore this list doesn't help for reconstruction of events of earlier period. Paruyr's name, son Skayordi, according to Piotrovsky's assumption, "the son of the Scythian" can mean and bear in himself a legend about ancient Armenian-Scythian contacts, however Parthian roots of this name give the chance to doubt it therefore this question needs additional researches.