Questionable reliability of Armenian sources

2/17/2021   Ризван Гусейнов , Armenia , Armenian falsification In English , In English

Rizvan HUSEYNOV. “Questionable reliability of Armenian sources” // Journal "IRS-History", № 42 winter 2019, pp. 58-63

 Huseynov Rizvan Najaf oglu -

Senior researcher at the Institute of Law and Human Rights of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences (ANAS)

Abstract

This article contains the critical essays of scholars, who study the history of Caucasus and Armenia, concerning the provenance and authenticity of Armenian medieval sources. Thus, readers begin to take a clear view of the fact that overwhelming majority of Armenian sources can't be grave scientific supplies for studying history because their authenticity raises valid doubts of leading experts and scientific. These sources are filled with numerous late insertions and even obvious falsifications of different copyists and interpreters. However, certain part of Armenian and even foreign scholars, research centers, and educational supplies on the history of our region are going on basing themselves upon these counterfeited sources.

The produced evidences and facts allow disproving the Armenian propagandistic conception about Caucasus and Asia Minor history with confidence, unmasking numerous falsifications of medieval authors and sources that Armenian parts use in struggle against Azerbaijan.

The drawback of Armenian history is not limited just to the concoction of geopolitical terms in order to annex the cultural heritage of peoples of Caucasus. Armenian sources provide public with information which was changed, amended and/or overtly fabricated. [4, 190-193]

The picture-book “The treasure of academic collection of Saint-Petersburg”, published in 2003, celebrates the 300^th anniversary of North Venice [5]. This book was dedicated to history as well as to description of academic collection stored in Saint-Petersburg.

Professor E.I.Kychanov, chief researcher at the University of Oriental Studies of RAS, draws some interesting details regarding the collection of Armenian manuscripts [5, 329-372]. His statement reveals the determined fact that the first appearance of Armenian manuscripts in the archives of the Institute of Oriental Studies in Saint-Petersburg dates back to 1828 [6] and to the later periods what coincides with the time when Russia took the possession of newly found lands of South Caucasus. 

Today it’s clear that 2 manuscripts of this collection refer to Armenians of the area of Asia Minor but not to South Caucasus. None of those 400 Armenian manuscripts and 2232 documents can be attributed to the ancient period. Obviously, the oldest manuscript is “Four Gospels”, which was rewritten in 1186. One more manuscript of this collection dates back to the 14^th century, others belong to the period of the 17^th-19^th centuries.

Apparently, even one of the world’s most notable archives, famous by its large collection of Armenian manuscripts, can’t boast even a single original Armenian manuscript of Early Medieval Period. Moreover, even later manuscripts are pronouncedly rewritten copies [5, 343-344].

Professor Kychanov emphasises the fact that most likely there are no ancient manuscripts among yet to be dated (recorded) ones. Furthermore, according to orientalist Rusada Rubenova Orbeli, studied manuscripts cannot be dated earlier than the 12^th century.

To compare: in the notes on Turkic manuscripts, prof. Kychanov asserts that some of them can be reliably dated to the 7^th century [5, 365-366]. The collection of Turkic manuscripts is one of the most studied and classified one, he states. He also claims that among more or less late showpieces the ancient ones are found.

When touching on the matter of reliability of Armenian sources, following episode should be mentioned. In 1971 the professor at Columbia University Nina Garsoian published an article “Armenia in the 4^th century” in “Izvestiya”, the newspaper in Armenian SSR [2, 55-62]. However, soon after being issued the article was criticised, retracted and removed. The point is that the conclusion brought by N.Garsoian clearly contradicted to the existed version made up by Armenian historians. Moreover, her inferences posed a threat to the reputation of their ‘ancient chronicles’.

The research conducted by the American historian decisively shows that there was no a trace of neither Armenian statehood nor independence for as long as fifteen hundred years. His work also proves that the date of the Armenian official recognition of the Christian faith is far-fetched and, that the ancient as well as subsequent chronicles do not correspond to historical realities [1, 446]. Nina Garsoian states that no evidence was found to prove existence of Armenia as a state in either ideological, religious or spiritual sense. Instead, there were satrapies dependent on Roman or Sassanid Empire and located in Asia Minor. The satrapies carried different political and religious interests, belonged to different ethnic groups and often fought with each other [2, 56-57].

Garsoian called into question a well-established opinion that Armenians were the first to adopt Christianity as a national religion. Relying on ancient sources she stresses that satrapies of Armenia were established and ruled by ethnos which has nothing in common with the modern Armenia-hayks [2, 58-59].

One of the American armenologists makes inference: “… in the beginning of the 4^th century Armenia comprises separate political formations: in the north- Arsacid   Dynasty, where capital was moved from Artashat to Dwin; in the south-autonomous satrapies which under the term of the treaty in 298 CE became autonomous under Roman suzerainty; and the province in the Euphrates lowlands which by that time was a part of Roman Empire. Later, in 387 CE when Armenia was divided, Armenia Interior was formed thus making the whole picture even more complicated. Armenia Interior consisted of gavars (provinces) to the north of Euphrates River which after a new treaty became part of Empire” [2, 57].

N. Garsoian collected some crucial comments of other American historians on the reliability of ancient Armenian sources [3, 23-34]. Those comments are aimed to washout the bunch of myths and fabrications.

It’s very important to mention that not only N.Garsoian but also a large group of scientist pulled to pieces the modern armenistics and its current state. Those scholars drew the lead in chronological order of resettlement of Armenians to South Caucasus and armenization of the heritage of peoples of that region.

Among those scholars who denounced blatant fabrications in Armenian history are George Bournoutian, Levon Avdoian, Richard Hovannisian, Ronald Grigor Suny; some soviet researchers as Emanuel Dolbakian, Manuk Abegian, Ashot Abramian, Rafik Abramian, Grigor Grigorian, Suren Yeremian, Abgar Joannisian, Jacob Mandanian, Karapet Melik-Ogajanian and etc [1, 6].

Translated by Samira Aliyeva

 References

1.     Ахундов Ф.Р. «Разрушители фальсификаций», Том I, тип. Polygraphic Production, Баку, 2012

2.     Гарсоян Н. Г. Армения в IV в. (К вопросу уточнения терминов «Армения» и «верность») //Լրաբեր Հասարակական Գիտությունների, No. 3, 1971.

3.     Гарсоян Н. Г. Арменоведение в США. //Լրաբեր Հասարակական Գիտությունների, № 10 . 1971

4.     Гусейнов Р.Н. Азербайджан и армянский вопрос на Кавказе, Баку, Институт по правам человека НАНА, 2015

5.     Петросян Ю. А., Иванова Е. А. Сокровища академических собраний Санкт-Петербурга, СПб, Наука, 2003

6.     СПбФ ИВ РАН - http://www.orientalstudies.ru