Hayasdan

[Foot]

If I may elaborate on the issue of Arkah, as in being God, I think this is more related to Orontid lineage vis-a-vis to the Achaemenids who denoted themselves as Ahûrâ Mazdâ, a god incarnated as man. We have little to no archaeological evidence on Armenian investitures, in particular dating to Orontid period, but I think there is reason that such a practice may have been adopted by Orontids. Back then Armenian and Iranian pantheons were very much alike, in fact the former had adopted many religious facets of the Achaemenids and may as a result have adopted the practice of religiously inspired investiture, to make kingship a matter sealed by religious authority and therefore also by divinity.

It's not an answer to the question raised, however it may give some insight into how the previous Hayasdan staff may have reasoned.

Certainly Tigran II took on the mantle of Theos from the Seleucid Kings after he inherited the cities of Syria. We also know that the brother of Orontes IV was the high priest of the Armenian Pantheon, so there is certainly a close connection between the two. From the inscriptions of the Urartean Kings, there is no indication that they were themselves considered as a God incarnate, thus Menua, for example, says that he speaks for the Dread God Khaldi, which does not suggest that the position of King was not divine in the same sense as the Egyptian Pharaohs (though it would not have been impossible).

Given that the first Orontid was of a royal Bactrian line and married into the Achaemenid family, it is not beyond comprehension that they picked up the practice of proclaiming themselves King, but this would have only been after the defeat of Darius, which might make it a bit suspect.

Foot