A probable hypothesis is that Aram of the Armenian historians, by his conquests and wise administration, had formed a dynasty, that the early Assyrians knew his country and some of his successors by his name, that Arame of the time of Shalmaneser may have been the last of that dynasty and on account of his reverses with the Assyrian King, his reign came to an end. The following quotation from Professor Sayce seems to confirm this view: “A more serious difficulty exists in the fact that Sarduris I calls himself the son of Lutipris, whereas the king of Uradhu, against whom Shalmaneser had to contend in 857 and 845 B.C., was Arame, and already, in 833 B.C., only twelve years later, his antagonist was Sarduris. It is, however, quite possible that the reign of Lutipris had been a short one of less than twelve years. But I am more inclined to conjecture that Sarduris I was the leader of a new dynasty, the ill successes of Arame in his wars with Assyrians forming the occasion for his overthrow.” This conjecture also explains why the kings of this dynasty do not call themselves the kings of Ararat, and have no reference to Arame, while much Assyrianism exists in their culture. In regard to the origin of Ararat, or Arardhi, it is certainly not a Semitic word, neither is it an Accadian, were it so, we would have been told. Moses of Khorene thought it was called Ara-ard, in reference to a defeat of Ara, the king of Armenia, in a bloody conflict with the Babylonians about eighteen centuries before our era. Another Armenian historian makes Arardhi to derive its name from King Ara, in honor of the king, it being composed of Ara and Ardh, “field” or “plain,” on account of his wise administration and the improvements which he made in the land.[23] Brockhous’ definition and derivation of Arardhi is the most satisfactory of all, namely, Ar, in Sanskrit the root of “Aryan” or “nobles,” and ardh, in ancient Armenian the “plains” or “field,” thus Arardhi or Ararat meaning “the plains of nobles” or “Aryans.”[24]