A MEDIEVAL ARMENIAN SOURCE ON THE HISTORY OF THE CAUCASUS AS ANALYZED BY JEAN SAINT-MARTIN
Rizvan HUSEYNOV
Researcher at the Human Rights Institute, National
Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (Baku, Azerbaijan).
Abstract
This article is an attempt to clarify some of the
remaining riddles in the history of the Christian peoples of the Central
Caucasus using scholarly publications of European students of the Caucasus of
the 18th and 19th centuries as the starting point. The author concentrates on the
Christian princely families and the ruling Turkic dynasties that figured
prominently in medieval Azerbaijan and Armenia; he relies on the very critical
comments of European historians of ancient Armenian sources on the history of
the Caucasus. According to European students of the Caucasus who spent much
time studying certain medieval Armenian manuscripts that found their way to
Europe, at least some of them cannot be treated as reliable historical sources.
Today, much of what the European historians wrote at one time has been forgotten,
giving way to numerous articles and books on the history of the Caucasus that
cite historical sources of dubious provenance without taking the trouble to
critically analyze them. The author attempts to remind the academic community
of what European students of the Caucasus wrote some 200 or even 300 years ago
regarding the extremely unreliable Armenian manuscripts.
KEYWORDS: Christianity, Turks, the Caucasus, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, historical sources.
Introduction
Lost Pages of the History of the Turkic Christian
Clans of the Central Caucasus
Today, European, Russian, to say nothing of Armenian
scholars, are using all sorts of tricks to pass over in silence the Turkic
roots of many medieval clans and families. This is true of the princely house
of Orbeliani-Orbelianovs, the roots of which are commonly traced back to
“China, from where they moved to Georgia.” The authors normally forget to say
that “China” was Altai, the homeland of the Turks and an area populated by
the tribes of Kara-Kitays (Kidan), rulers of the medieval powers in Central
Asia.
The history of the Christian Turks (Nestorians,
Paulicians, Gregorians, and others), their spiritual and historical heritage,
and the huge role they played in the history of Eurasia from China to Europe,
from India and Iran to Egypt, and from Asia Minor and the Caucasus to Russia
remains little studied.
Today, the heritage of the Christian Turks in the
Caucasus and Asia Minor has been Armenianized for the simple reason that most
of the cathedrals and monasteries, along with valuable manuscripts, holy texts,
and monuments, were appropriated by the Armenian Church.
The History of the Princes of Orpélian makes it
absolutely clear that the princes and the local people in general long followed
Monothelitism rooted in Byzantium. It differed from Roman and Orthodox
Christianity, Gregorian Monophysitism, and other confessions [2]. Himself an active
Monothelite, Étienne Orpélian, as the Archbishop of Siounie, strengthened his
influence, thus fanning opposition of the Armenian top clergy members who
disapproved of Monothelitism. In an effort to overcome their opposition, the
Archbishop turned to Argun Khan, a powerful emperor of Mongolia and Persia for
a document confirming his status in the Church; the emperor complied [3]. This confrontation is
explained by the fact that most of Armenian clergy embraced the postulates
of the Roman Catholic Church, which was at daggers drawn with Byzantium,
inclined toward Monothelitism [4].
Aggrieved, Étienne Orpélian wrote: “The Fall from grace that hit Armenia
limited its contacts with the faith of their fathers” [5]. We know nothing about his life, however we know that
“he died in 753 of the Armenian era or 1304 A.D. He was succeeded by his nephew
Jean, son of Libarid, whom he also raised” [6]. Étienne Orpélian wrote about the Ildighizes of
Azerbaijan who lived in the “land of fires” (“pays aux flames”) and
ruled vast territories in the Caucasus and Asia Minor, including Armenia. He
referred, in particular, to the time of atabek of Azerbaijan Schams-eddin
Ildighiz [7].
Saint-Martin pointed to an interesting detail—some
of the Armenians objected to or even rejected the works of Étienne Orpélian
and other Armenian authors. Their texts, adjusted to Armenian preferences,
were published in Madras (India) in 1775 on the initiative of Catholicos of All
Armenians Patriarch Simeon in the print shop of a rich merchant, Jacques
Shamiryan, who was born in New Julfa not far from Isfahan. Earlier, in 1772, he
published a small book by Armenian authors and called on them to join forces to
publish a concise history and geography of Armenia. Real scholars preferred to
ignore these “works” and never trusted those who had written them: it turned
out that many events, facts, and life stories of prominent people were stolen
from the history of Georgia and the Tatars (Azeris). In other words, Catholicos
Simeon and his sponsor Shamiryan, as well as those who invented the history of
Armenia and decorated it with bits and pieces of the history of Georgia and the
Turks, were nothing but frauds in the eyes of true scholars.
Jean Saint-Martin pointed out that “despite their
efforts, this edition is brimming with gaps and errors, which we correct (“cette
édition contient un grand nombre de fautes que nous avons corrigées”) before
appraising its value or plausibility… We cannot see the manuscript in order to
remove the blemishes (“les taches”) of the Madras edition” [8].The French historian
believed that a copy of the History of Orpélian could be found in a
library in Germany; at least one of them was found in 1717 in the cell of Jean
Acoluthus, a professor from Breslau. He knew a little Armenian, which allowed
him to collect several Armenian books, the History of Orpélian among
them. “Its parts were later translated into Latin by a certain M.V. de La Croze
and published with other bits from the same book related to the Tatars” [9]. In 1810, Excerpta ex libro
Stephani, Synenis archiepiscopi, scripto sub finem saculi XIII, cui titules
est: Badmuthiun Orbeleanzz, Historia Satraparum Orbelensium, inmajore Armenia,
a patchwork of the Latin version was published in St. Petersburg [10]. The first and unique handbook (cahier)
contained a certain amount of information related to the Orient, which M. Jules
de Klaproth suggested to be published under the title Archiv für asiatische
Litteratur, geschichte und sprachkunde. [11].
This means that in the 1770s, Catholicos Simeon and
merchant Shamiryan, when publishing works about Armenia, deliberately left out
the chapters on the History of Orpélian translated by de La Croze and
Théophile Bayer, which, according to Saint-Martin, “tied the narration together
and were therefore of great importance for the publication of the History of
Orpélian” [12]. In this way, at
the turn of the 19th century, the Armenians falsified the history of other
nations to knock together “ancient Armenian” historical sources that today
Armenian, European, and Russian authors consider authentic, which is highly
regrettable.
On the Works of Movses Khorenatsi, “Father of Armenian
History”
In his Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur
l’Arménie, Jean Saint-Martin paid special attention to the personality and
the works ascribed to “father of Armenian history” Movses Khorenatsi (Moyse
de Khoren), who lived in the 5th century; Saint-Martin translated
them and supplied commentaries. None of the Armenian translators gave a correct
rendition, to say the least: they deliberately mistranslated his works and
even their titles; his Patmutyun Hayots (History of the Hayots) was
offered to the reader as History of the Armenians. This was done to
conceal the true history of the Armenians and their true self-name: indeed,
even historians, to say nothing of trusting readers, are aware of how the
Armenians differ from the Hayots.
The self-name of the contemporary Armenians is Hayot
and their country is Hayastan, which has nothing in common with ancient
Armenian culture, history, or geography. This explains why for many years
Armenian authors have been skillfully falsifying and appropriating the cultural
and historical heritage of various ancient (now extinct) peoples completely
unrelated to the Hayots who, driven by historical circumstances, moved from the
Balkans to Asia Minor and further on to the Caucasus.
The second volume of Mémoires historiques reveals
a huge number of distortions, discrepancies, and falsifications in the works
ascribed to Movses Khorenatsi. Here I have in mind his geographical composition
called Ashkharatsuyts (Աշխարհացույց), literally translated from the Armenian as “Picture
of the World.” Its French translation can be found in the second volume of
Saint-Martin’s Mémoires historiques. [13]. In his introductory article (“Mémoire sur l’époque de la
composition De la Géographie attribuée à Moyse de Khoren”), Jean Saint-Martin
demonstrated that Movses Khorenatsi’s Geography [14] contained a vast body of information, geographical names, and
words that could not be known to someone who lived and worked before the 10th
century, which means that the book could not have been written in the 5th
century.
The above suggests that the book allegedly written by
Movses Khorenatsi was a joint product of several generations of Armenian
hoaxers [15]; the Mechitarists (the
members of an order founded by Abbot Mekhitar of Sebaste in 1701; in 1717 they
migrated to Venice and the island of San Lazzaro; at a later date, the order
split into two parts, one of them moving to Vienna where it still functions
today) made their contribution to the common effort. The order, engaged in
publishing, never hesitated to distort historical facts to create a history of
Armenia out of numerous compilations, falsifications, and quotations from
authors of antiquity adjusted to look like old Armenian compositions. They
served the Vatican and helped to promote its influence in the Near East. [16]
The Mechitarists retreated under the pressure of Jean
Saint-Martin’s revelations. In 1843, they issued another version of Movses
Khorenatsi’s Geography free from a larger part of previous falsifications.
This book, however, still left much room for doubts about its authenticity: the
author, who lived in the 5th century, could not have referred to Cosmas
Indicopleustes, who lived in the 6th century, and could not have mentioned
events that took place even later. The arguments supplied by Jean Saint-Martin
were accepted (partially) by Armenian researcher Kerope Patkanov in the
Introduction to his translation of Ashkharatsuyts. [17] Patkanov agreed with the French scholar on many
points; from that time on the works of Movses Khorenatsi were no longer
regarded as a serious historical source. To become finally convinced that those
who used his name to write Patmutyun Hayots distorted the initial
version, it is enough to read the first Russian translation of Movses Khorenatsi’s
work by Armenian Archdeacon Iosif Ioannes in 1809. [18]
Here is what Saint-Martin wrote in the second volume
of his Mémoires historiques about the personalities and works of
Armenian public figures and chroniclers, including Movses Khorenatsi. He
insisted, in particular, that after studying Khorenatsi’s work in detail he
concluded that it had appeared much later than the 5th century [19]. In fact, the French historian
ascribed the work to a translator from the Armenian (le translateur Arménien);
he doubted that it had been written by Movses Khorenatsi himself because he
discovered in his book several chapters borrowed from different ancient books:
much was taken from Ptolemy’s Geography [20]. What is more, they were borrowed not from the original, but
from other sources that merely referred to them. Jean Saint-Martin presupposed that the work ascribed
to Movses Khorenatsi had been written by an Armenian translator born in Gaul,
who was a local Frank. “The Armenian translator placed the Franks with the Gaulles.
If we presuppose that the translator was Movses Khorenatsi himself we can say
that he wrote about Franks as living in Gaulle while the Gaulles had not been
powerful enough to be known in Armenia in 460” (“Le traducteur Arménier
place les Francs dans les Gaules. En supposant que ce traducteur soit Moyse de
Khoren, il se pourroit à la rigueur qu’il eût parle des Francs comme habitans
de la Gaule, quoiqu’ils n’y fussent pas encore bien puissans en l’an 460; ce
qui rend difficile de croire qu’on ait pu les connoître alors en Arménie”).
[21]
The French historian pointed out that Movses Khorenatsi,
who lived in the 5th century, could have hardly known a lot about Gaul (the old
name of western and southern part of Europe) and the Franks who lived there. In
the same way, the later translator (or author of Khorenatsi’s work) could have
hardly known anything about far-away Armenia (“un pays très-eloigné de la
Gaule”). This brought Saint-Martin to the inevitable conclusion that
this had been added later to the work ascribed to Movses Khorenatsi—one more
confirmation that this book (at least, all of it) is neither authentic, nor
ancient. The term “Russians” used in the book stirred up even more doubts about
the authorship and authenticity. There were no Russians in the 5th century. And
living in the 5th century Movses Khorenatsi could not have known either Franks
or Russians. Medieval sources wrote about the Rus. The term “Rus” (but not
“Russian”) first appeared in the 10th century in the stories about their
attacks on Constantinople, the Black Sea and Caspian coasts, and the Caucasus. For
obvious reasons, Movses Khorenatsi could not have written about something that
took place five centuries after his death.
The fact that Movses Khorenatsi used fragments from
the works of medieval Arab historians who lived some five to seven centuries
later is even more baffling. The French author pointed out that Khorenatsi
borrowed Arab quotes together with (misspelt) names of rivers and settlements;
this means that Khorenatsi knew Turkic toponyms which appeared, according to
Saint Martin, many years after his death. “I think,” wrote Saint-Martin, “that
this geographic name could have been used by the indigenous population of the
south of Russia and could have been borrowed by the Tatars. Nothing suggests,
however, that it was not used by the Rus at the time when the Geography, of
which I write here, had been already written” (Je crois donc que ce nom peut
avoir été autrefois en usage chez les indigènes de la Russie méridionale, qui
l’auront peut-être reçu des Tartares. Rien ne s’oppose reaisonnablement à ce
qu’il fût en usage chez le Russes au temps où la géographie qui nous occupé a
été composée). [22]
Indeed, Movses Khorenatsi called Tauric Chersonese
“Khrim” or Crimea (Crimée), a geographic name unknown in the 5th
century. “There is no doubt that this name, derived from ancient Cimmeria, was
borrowed at a later period.” [23]
The French researcher pointed to another later
addition to the work ascribed to Movses Khorenatsi: he wrote about the
Christians converted by Rome in Sarmatia (the ancient name of Eastern Europe
and the Black Sea coastal area). Jean Saint-Martin pointed out that during
Movses Khorenatsi’s lifetime neither Sarmatia nor Taurida (as its part)
belonged to the Roman Empire. “This makes their conversion to Christianity
doubtful,” wrote the French author, “this could have happened later… The
Russians had not converted to Christianity by 986: before that date Taurida
was the only Christian region in the north. This means that the book was
written in 950” [24]. Even this date
cannot be accepted since by the 10th century there was no Gaulle.
Movses Khorenatsi wrote about the peoples of Asian
Sarmatia and mentioned Shirvan when writing about those who lived in the
Caucasian mountains. Jean Saint-Martin found it strange that when writing about
Shirvan, the author, who allegedly lived in the 5th century, supplied
information that appeared much later: “The name Shirvan, currently applied to
ancient Albania, came into use only at the time of Persian King Khosrau
Anushirvan, that is, in the mid-6th century.” Saint-Martin further wrote that
“so-called Moyse de Khoren” had lost his bearings in geographical names and
used those unknown in the 5th century.
Jean Saint-Martin pointed to one more blunder of
the Armenian author: when writing about the locality in Armenia (today not far
from Erzincan in Turkey), he had called it Sadakkh (in Armenian territory). In
fact, there was no Armenia there in the 5th century, while the locality was
called Ardshkkh (Artash). According to the History of Daron by
Jean, Bishop of Mamigoneans, [25] this
place got its name several centuries later. Born in Daron (Taron), Movses
Khorenatsi should have had known better what his homeland was called.
When writing about the locality named Arabic Petreya
(it called itself Hijjaz: the environs of Mecca, Medina, and other Arabian
areas), the Armenian author said that it was the place where the Prophet
Abraham (Ibrahim) had lived and even cited certain facts. Jean Saint-Martin
commented, with good reason, that in the 5th century or even much later, the
peoples living nearby (let alone the Christian world) knew nothing about the
life and deeds of the Prophet Abraham. This all became known only when the
local peoples acquired the Koran in the 7th century. Before that, only the
local people knew about the Prophet Abraham living in Mecca and its environs.
The Christian world learned about this much later, when the Koran was
translated into other languages. This means that those Armenian authors who
wrote under the name of Movses Khorenatsi had borrowed facts related to the
Prophet Abraham from medieval Muslim authors and ascribed them to Movses
Khorenatsi, who lived several centuries before Islam.
The French author detected another absurdity: “When
writing about Babylon, so-called Movses Khorenatsi mentioned Basra (a city in
Iraq.—R.H.), which could not have appeared before Islam” [26]. This means that Movses
Khorenatsi wrote about Basra two hundred years before the city was set up when
Islam spread far and wide and the Arabian Caliphate appeared.
“M. de Sainte-Croix (another French author.—R.H.)
detected the same fault and pointed out that the fact that Basra was mentioned
in this ‘Geography of Armenia’ suggested that it was not written by Movses
Khorenatsi. Neither Sainte-Croix, nor any other author pointed out that the
same paragraph mentioned another city also founded when the Muslim faith
appeared. This was Kufa built after the capture of Madain, the capital of the
Persian Empire in 17 AH (A.D. 638)” [27].
This means that Movses Khorenatsi mentioned Basra and Kufa, both founded at
the time of the Arabian Caliphate, that is, several centuries after his death.
Irevan and Azerbaijan in the Works of Movses
Khorenatsi
Much of what the Armenian geographer wrote in his book
did not happen or appear on the map of the world until at least the 10th or
11th centuries, which means that he could not have known about them and,
therefore, could not have written the book. In fact, Jean Saint-Martin doubted
even this later date because the Geography mentions events and
geographical names related to an even later period. For example, Movses
Khorenatsi, who lived in the 5th century, described the city of Revan (Rhovan)
built by Azeri potentates in the 16th century.
Amazed by this obvious blunder, the French researcher
wrote: “I have also noted in Khorenatsi’s Geography that he mentioned
Rhovan, one of the regions of Azerbaijan, which was probably Revan. This is
the Muslim name of that part of Armenia of which Erivan was the capital and
which, at all times, was part of Azerbaijan ruled by Muslims” [28]. This means that Jean Saint-Martin
and his contemporaries knew that the fortress-city of Revan (Irevan) had been
built by Muslim Turks and that “at all times, it was part of Azerbaijan” (“fit
toujours partie de l’Aderbaïdjan”). These authors never mentioned
the old Armenian city of Erebuni-Erevan for the simple reason that it belongs
to an Armenian myth invented in the mid-20th century.
In the Middle Ages, the territory of what is now
Armenia was called Chukhursaad, one of the four dominions of the Safavides, an
Azeri dynasty. In 1504, Shah Ismail I ordered his military leader Revangulu
Khan to build a fortress in this territory. Seven years later, the fortress
built on the high rocky bank in the southeast part of the Zanga River (which
the Armenians now call Hrazdan) was named Revan in honor of Revangulu Khan;
after a while the pronunciation slipped to Irevan (due to the phonetic
specifics of the Turkic languages, which often use the vowel “i” before the
consonant “r”). In the course of time, the fortress became widely known
across the Orient as a city of minarets: there were 8 mosques in the city and
800 houses; its population was exclusively Azeri.
The Erivan fortress was the administrative and
political center of the Erivan Khanate and a symbol of its power for 300 years
until czarist Russia started moving into the Caucasus; this triggered several
bloody wars between the Russian, Ottoman, and Persian empires, each seeking
domination in the region. For twenty-three years, Russian troops tried in vain
to capture the strategically important Erivan fortress on the border of the
Ottoman and Persian empires. In October 1827, it took several bloody battles
for a 12-thousand-strong Russian army under General Paskevich to capture the
fortress, but they did not destroy it. Even after the khanate was abolished,
the fortress remained the heart and main attraction of the Armenian Region and,
later, of the Erivan Gubernia, and was partly damaged by the earthquake of
1864.
In the 1920s, the Armenian authorities, resolved to
demolish what remained after the earthquake, removed the sardar palace,
mosques, bathhouses, and everything that testified to the city’s Muslim past.
The walls, which looked very much like the walls of the Baku Fortress, were
gradually razed to the ground, the cemeteries disappeared, and the names of the
city’s quarters were changed. The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic set up on
Azeri lands completed the destruction of the fortress and the monuments of
medieval Azeri architecture. In 1936, when the last traces of the city’s
Muslim past had been removed, the city acquired its new name, Erevan. This
destroyed the memory of those who had built the city and who lived in this
jewel of Azeri and Muslim culture. The Armenians did not think twice about
removing the unique and amazingly beautiful palace of the Erivan khans
(sardars) where, in 1827, the exiled Decembrists first performed Gore ot Uma
(Woe from Wit), a play written by Alexander Griboyedov (Russian Ambassador to
Persia), before the author. [29]
It was in the 1960s, when the last traces of the
Erivan Fortress had finally disappeared, that the Armenians put the myth of
Erebuni-Erevan allegedly founded in 782 B.C. into circulation. The idea was
born in the 1950s when Soviet archeologists discovered (at a more or less great
distance from Erevan) remnants of an Urartu fortress and a clay tablet with a
cuneiform inscription deciphered as RBN. Enthusiastic Armenians went even
further: RBN was interpreted as Erebuni (Erevan), which invited a lot of
criticism from prominent Soviet and foreign historians, including those who had
taken part in the diggings. In 1968, the leaders of the Armenian S.S.R., having
pushed aside all the objections and the fact that until the early 16th century
the Erivan Fortress was not mentioned in historical and archival sources,
celebrated the 2750th anniversary of Erevan. [30]
The fortress and the buildings inside it looked very
much like Icheri Shekher in Baku, the khan palaces in Sheki and Shusha (now
occupied by the Armenians, who have practically destroyed the Shusha palace).
These and a multitude of other architectural monuments, including the Erivan
Fortress, bear witness to the territorial scope of the Azeri Medieval culture,
something which the Armenians cannot accept. This explains why they completely
destroyed the historical center of their capital. Today, unlike many other
ancient cities that have preserved their architectural heritage and are justly
proud of it (Moscow, Tbilisi, and Baku can serve as pertinent examples), Erevan
has nothing to show off.
Jean Saint-Martin rightly noted that the world learned
about Movses Khorenatsi and his works as late as the 17th century, when bits and pieces of his writings appeared in
Armenian in Livre de Géographie et de Fables, ou Livre du Renard published
in 1683 in Marseille (France). [31]
This means that the work allegedly written in the 5th
century became widely known in the 17th century, a fact that raises doubts
about its date and authenticity. It seems that the scholarly community of
Europe did not have much trust in Khorenatsi’s information—otherwise it would
not have appeared in the “livre de fables” (collection of myths). It was
much later that so-called Armenian scholars distorted and twisted Movses
Khorenatsi’s original texts to raise them to the rank of “reliable historical
sources” and elevate the author to the rank of “father of Armenian history.”
Jean Saint-Martin had the following to say about the
Marseille edition: “The translation was very careless and based on a bad
manuscript; it abounds in misspelt geographical names. In 1736, the Whiston
brothers reprinted the book in London together with its Latin version to
complement the ‘History’ of Movses Khorenatsi. It was abridged and largely
followed the Marseille version without corrections (“sans y fair le moindre
correction”). It is very hard to understand, especially at the beginning
where the Armenian language could not clarify the astronomical and mathematical
details: it seems that the Armenian translator himself was very vague about
them ... the errors are numerous and gross (nombreuses et grossières)
so there is not much sense in trying to correct them… (“que se seroit perdre
son temps que de les remarquer”). We know nothing about the manuscript
except the fact that it was written by an Armenian” (“Nous n’en
connoissons aucun manuscript: seulment, dans le manuscript Arménien”). [32]
From this it follows that the manuscript ascribed to
Movses Khorenatsi was not an original. It was either an illiterate fake or a
later translation from the Armenian done by who knows who and who knows when.
Jean Saint-Martin wrote further: “The Geography ascribed to Movses
Khorenatsi published in Marseille (pp. 61-71) contains information about the
routes to Tovin (Dvin.—R.H.)... It seems that the work ascribed to Movses
Khorenatsi was compiled in the 9th or 10th century when Tovin was the capital
of Armenia. These fragments are even more careless and are brimming with
errors.” [33]
Movses Khorenatsi on the Localization of Azerbaijan
and “Geographic Armenias”
Movses Khorenatsi outlined the geographical area of
Azerbaijan and localized several Armenian provinces, including Greater Armenia.
Here is what the author wrote about the geographic location of Armenia. He
divided it into several parts: “The third Armenia is found to the east of Cilicia
close to the Taurus Mountain; there are three mountains and four rivers there
and two passes to Syria.
“The first Armenia is found to the east of the first
Cappadocia and next to the third Armenia; it is bound by the Euphrates in the
east; Mount Argeus, the River Halys, and several small rivulets are also found
here.
“The second Armenia is situated to the east of
Cappadocia and stretches to the Euphrates; there are two other rivers and many
(more than twenty-two) very high mountains.” [34]
Movses Khorenatsi continued his narration with a
description of so-called Greater Armenia, which during its very short life
(several decades in the 1st century B.C.) captured bits and pieces of Caucasian
territory before being routed by the Roman Empire. It continued as a vassal of
its own neighbors and disappeared from the stage. In this context the author mentioned Azerbaijan: “Greater
Armenia is found to the east of Cappadocia and Lesser Armenia on the banks
of the Euphrates, next to the Taurus Mountain, which divides Mesopotamia. It
borders on Assyria in the south and stretches from Aderbadagan toward Media,
reaching the place where the Arax flows into the Caspian. In the north it is
bound by Albania, Iberian, and Colchis, or Eger, up to the place where the Euphrates
turns to the south.” [35]. When writing about the lands captured by Greater
Armenia, Khorenatsi mentioned Azerbaijan situated to the north of Media,
that is, in the CAUCASUS, which means that the “father of Armenian history”
(who lived in the 5th century), or an unknown author registered that Azerbaijan
was situated in the Caucasus in the Early Middle Ages or even later.
He further confirmed this date by placing Vasbouragan
“to the east of Persian Armenia and close to Gordjaikh in Georgia” and
mentioned Aderbadouni (Azerbaijan) as situated in the Caucasus [36]. The name Aderbadagan reappears in
the story about ancient Paytakaran (Beylagan) in the Azerbaijan Republic: “Paidagaran
to the east of Oudia near the Arax: it consists of twelve provinces which
belong to contemporary Aderbadagan.” When writing about the lands of
Budins, the author localized them as follows: “Oudia close to the Arax,
between Artsakh and the Kura River, consists of seven provinces ruled by
the Albanians.”
When writing about Artsakh, Movses Khorenatsi pointed
out that these lands were populated by the Caucasian Albanis and that the
Kara-Koyunlu also lived there:
“Artsakh, which borders on Siounie, consists of twelve provinces ruled
by Albanians and others—Khapant, Vaguni, Pertadzor, greater Iran, greater
Govan, Hardjlan, Mukan (Mugan), Bian, Baydzgan, Sisagan, Kerdag, Kasdim,
Farnes, and Gokt populated by kara-koyuns” [37]. The “father of Armenian history” who, according to Armenian
academics lived in the 5th century, wrote about the Azeri tribe of
Kara-Koyunlu, which became known in the 13th-14th centuries.
When Movses Khorenatsi mentioned Azerbaijan as one of
the Median provinces, he also wrote about Rovan-Irevan: “Media, also
known as Kusdi Kabgokh, neighbors on Armenia and the Caspian. It includes the
provinces of Aderbadagan, Rey, Kilan, Mugan, Tilum, Ahmadan, Tampvar,
Sbarasdan, Aml, Kshosh, and Rovan (Irevan.—R.H.)” [38]. In his Geography, the same author wrote about the
Turks who lived in a huge territory stretching from the European part of Russia
to China: “Scythia is populated by Abakdars (Bactrians.—R.H.),
who call themselves Turks. Their country stretches from the River Itil
(Volga) to Mount Imaus (in Altai.—R.H.) and Djenasdan (China.—R.H.).”
[39]
This means that Movses Khorenatsi, who allegedly lived
in the 5th century, knew about Azerbaijan in the Caucasus, about the Turks,
their territories, and their occupations. This undermines the position of the
present ideologists of Armenian nationalism who insist that “all Turks are
nomads” and Azerbaijan has nothing to do with ancient history and the Caucasus.
Conclusion
The above allows us to conclude that, in the 17th and
18th centuries, the Armenians acquired the habit of falsifying and
appropriating historical facts and even whole periods in the histories of other
peoples. This was when the European powers and the Roman Catholic Church became
resolved to conquer Asia Minor and the Caucasus. Later, the flow of lies took
on mass proportions: in the 19th and 20th centuries, Armenian historical works
inundated the world. By that time, Armenian authors had learned to refer to
“ancient primary sources” similar to the works written by the “father of Armenian
history” that had suddenly resurfaced in Europe some 100-150 years earlier.
Prominent and respected scholars reminded the world that the Armenian sources
could not be trusted.
The works of Movses Khorenatsi, the “father of
Armenian history,” used by Armenian and partly world historical science as one
of the main historical sources, are nothing more than a patchwork of borrowed
facts or fake information. It should be said in all justice, however, that many
of the borrowed facts are genuine; they found their way into his works from
ancient sources and supply detailed information about the geographic location
and geographic names of places in medieval Azerbaijan, as well as about the
local peoples.
==============================================================
1 See: J. Saint-Martin, Mémoires historiques et
géographiques sur l’Arménie, suivis du texte Arménien de l’histoire des
princes Orpélians, Vol. 2, Imprimerie Royale, Paris, 1819.
2 Monothelitism (from Greek μόνος—the only one and θέλημα, meaning will) is a Christological doctrine which formulated
in the 7th century in Byzantium to unite, on a common faith, the parties of
Miaphysites (anti-Chalcedonites) and Dyothelites (Chalcedonites) which opposed
each other in the Universal Church. Monothelitism professed one will and two
natures in the person of Jesus. Emperor of Byzantium Heraclius invited the
Armenian Apostolic Church to embrace Monothelitism which it did in 633.
3 See: J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 5.
4 See:Ibidem.
5 Ibid., p. 6.
6 Ibid., p. 8.
7 See:Ibid., p. 10.
8 Ibid., p. 12.
9 “Thesaurus epistolicus Lacrozianus,” Vol. III, pp.
5, 6 and 11-14,” in: J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 13.
10 See: Excerpta ex libro Stephani, Synenis
archiepiscopi, scripto sub finem saculi XIII, cui titules est: Badmuthiun
Orbeleanzz, Historia Satraparum Orbelensium, in majore Armenia; a M.V.
LACROZIO, BAERO Transmissa, Archiv für asiatische Litteratur, geschichte
und sprachkunde, erster band, in-4°, 1810, pp. 114-119 (Bavarian State
Library).
11 See: Ibid., pp. 114-118.
12 J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 13.
13 See: Ibid., pp. 301-394.
14 See: Ibidem.
15 See: “Supplement to the Home Setting of A.
Arzumanian on the history of Erevan, Armenia, and Christianity in the Southern
Caucasus,” Regnum.ru, 31 December, 2011, available in Russian at
[www.regnum.ru/news/fd-abroad/azeri/analitics/1485569.html].
16 See: Sovetskaia istoricheskaia entsiklopedia,
ed. by E.M. Zhukov, Sovetskaia entsiklopedia, Moscow, 1973-1982.
17 See: Armianskaia geografia VII veka po R.Ch.
(Pripisyvavshayasia Moiseiu Khorenskomu), Transl. by K.P. Patkanov, Print
shop of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, V.O., St. Petersburg, 9 sheets, No.
12, 1877.
18 See: Armenskaia istoria, sochinennaia Moiseem
Khorenskim s kratkim geograficheskim opisaniem drevney Armenii, perevedennaia
na russkiy iazyk arkhidiakonom Iosifom Ioannesom, St. Petersburg, 1809.
19 See: J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 302.
20 See: Ibid., pp. 304-305.
21 Ibid., p. 305.
22 Ibid., p. 308.
23 Ibid., p. 309.
24 Ibid., p. 310 (here and hereafter italics in the
quotations are mine.—R.H.).
25 Jean, évêque des Mamigonéans, Historie de Daron,
Ch. VII, pag. 10, suppl. édition de Constantinopole, 1719 (see: J.
Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 311, footnote).
26 J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 312.
27 Journal des Savans, 1789, Avril, pag. 217
eisuiv (see: J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 313).
28 J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., pp. 314-315 (footnote).
29 See: “Rizvan Huseynov: V pomoshch stroiteliam
Erevana,” IA Regnum, 20 February, 2012.
30 See: “V Azerbaidzhane ubezhdeny, chto Erevan
osnovan azerbaidzhanskimi khanami—FOTO,” Regnum.ru, 24 December, 2011.
31 See: Livre de Géographie et de Fables, ou Livre
du Renard (see: J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., pp. 315-316).
32 J. Saint-Martin, op. cit., p. 316.
33 Ibid., p. 317.
34 Ibid., p. 355.
35 Ibid., pp. 359-361.
36 Ibid., pp. 363-364.
37 Ibid., p. 365.
38 Ibid., p. 371.
39 Ibid., p. 373.
Комментарии: