sign in sign up
<<
Home , Caucasian Albania, Mushki, Origin of the Armenians

YAGUB MAHMUDOV

REAL HISTORY

AND CONFABULATION ON “GREAT ”

BAKU 2014

Azerbaijan National Academy of Science Published by the decision of the Scientific Board of the Institute of History named after A.A.Bakikhanov

Scientific editor: d.p.u.m. Alimirzayev Allahverdi

Translated by: Ph. d. assistant prof. Sabina Almammadova

Designer and technical editor: d.p.u.r. Mehri Khanbabayeva

Mahmudov Y.M. REAL HISTORY and confabulation on great Armenia. : Turkhan PPA, 2014-152 pages.

The facts that the moved to Asia Minor from Balkan peninsula, they were relative ethnos to the ancient to the inhabitants of by origin and were not aboriginal inhabitants of Asia are stated on the basis of first sources in the book. It is proved that modern Armenians (hays) owned the names “armeniya”, “armyane”, “armenia”after having moved to Eastern Anadolu. A governmental organ called “Great Armenia” never existed in the history. The notion “Great Armenia” was confabulated by Armenian falsifiers for the purpose of owning the lands of , and . The book is considered for wide audience of readers.

ISBN 978-9952-8212-4-6

© ANAS, Institute of History, 2014

Azerbaijan will never allow establishing the second artificial Armenian state on our land. I am sure that the territorial integrity of our country will be established and the citizens of Azerbaijan will be settled down on all occupied lands. will returnback to the historical lands in the future!

Ilham ALIYEV Republic

History of Azerbaijan is cleaned from scientific falsifications and distortions by the calls, recommendations and tasks of our president Ilham Aliyev, the Institute of History of National Academy of Sciences is in its most honorable period. Tens of precious work as “Garabagh – real history, facts, documents”, “Nakhchivan – history and monuments”, “Iravan khanate: Occupation by and migration of Armenians to the lands of The northern Azerbaijan”, “Genocide against historical names”, “Historical Atlas of Azerbaijan”, “Genocide of 1918 against Azerbaijani people” have been published at the Institute of History and a lot of sources kept abroad, as well as archival documents have been brought to the country within the last ten years on the initiative of the head of the country. The book “Real history and confabulation on great Armenia” is the next step taken by the Institute of History in the field of implementation of the task of the head of the country on clearing the native history from falsifications and distortions.

CONTENTS

FOREWORD or why did I write this research...... 7

Armenians moved to Asia Minor from Balkan peninsula...... 13 What is the purpose in the confabulation of “Great Armenia”? ...... 13 What does “the Father of History” write about the origin of Armenians? ...... 16 The effort to relate the ” to the ancient Eastern Story” failed ...... 19 The claim of the Armenians to be people having Anadolu origin was not affirmed...... 30 The effort to relate the of Armenia with was affirmed as falsification...... 33 The claim on inheritance of the legacy of ancient of the Armenians failed...... 34

The names as “ARMINA”, “ARMENIYA” and ”ARMENIA” (armyane) have no relation with modern Armenians ...... 43

Where did ancient “ARMINA” that the Armenians declared themselves as the owner locate in? ...... 52

Where was the area of “ARMENIYA” described at work “Anabasis” written by ? ...... 63

5 REAL HISTORY

The geographical notion of “Armenian plateau” as the “Great Armenia” (Armyanskoye Nagornoye) was concocted afterwards...... 77

Ancient ARMINA population...... 85

Never in the history There was no state under the name "Great Armenia" ...... 93 How and when it has been invented Concept "Great Armenia" ...... 93 Selevki commanders of Artaksi (Аrtashes) And Zariadri (Зарех) were not Armenians...... 98 Created by Selevki commander Artaksi the state never was called "Great Armenia" ...... 101 had never been occupied by Tigran the Second...... 112 Which areas were concerned with Great Armenia geographical conception by the ancient authors? ...... 125

CONCLUSION ...... 130

SOURCES AND LITERATURES ...... 133

ADDITIONS...... 143

6 and confabulation on great Armenia

FOREWORD

or why did I write this research

Southern Caucasus where independent Azerbaijan Republic is located and is a part of historical Azerbaijan, as well as wholly Caucasus region is one of the hottest points of the Earth as it was in the previous historical periods. As always, great states forward the policy to be strengthened on this space having important military strategic significance, as well as in Azerbaijan and to appropriate underground and above round riches of this land. Today’s anxious history of Southern Caucasus, as well as of my native land Azerbaijan was begun at the beginning of XIX century. Just at that period Czar Russia began to occupy Southern Caucasus. This land became the area of bloody wars between three neighborhood countries – Czar Russia, of Gajars and . It is an irrefutable historical reality that the ruling circles of Czar Russia punished bloodily the Turkish moslem people of this land in order to deprive Iran of Gajars and Ottoman Empire from religious‐ethnic supports during Caucasus wars. The Czar generals or

7 REAL HISTORY

Armenian and Georgian origin were involved in the military operations in order “to clean” Southern Caucasus, as well as The northern Azerbaijan from Turkish moslem people. They began to perpetrate a massacreto peaceful, unarmed Turkish moslem people throughout Southern Caucasus. The Armenian officers serving in the Czar army derived profit from this condition and made short work of the people of Azerbaijan. The policy to cause a quarrel among the local inhabitants and to cause them to slay each other, to make the moslem people to be converted to by force of arm was forwarded. Briefly, the barbarism shown to the local people by the European colonialists during occupations in Africa, America, Asia and Australia within the period of Great geographical discoveries was repeated in Sothern Caucasus too. Implementing the behest of Peter I, the Czar government began to realize the policy of migration of Armenians to the land of The northern America from Iran of Gajars and Ottoman Empire within the mentioned period. According to the conditions of Turkmenchay (1828) and Adirna (1829) agreements, Armenians were moved in mass to the land of occupied The northern Azerbaijan – at first to the areas of Irevan and Garabagh khanates, as well as to other lands where Azerbaijanis were located. The invaders armed the Armenians in mass. Thereby, massacre directed to

8 and confabulation on great Armenia

“cleaning” of Southern Caucasus, as well as The northern Azerbaijan from Turkish moslem people was begun. … One of this criminal policy directed to Azerbaijan is that a “district of Armenia” was established in Irevan and around it where our people had lived for thousand years and made for Armenians moved from Turkey and Iran in 1828. Following it, Irevan province was established (1849). Later, a state was established for the Armenians in Southern Caucasua and on the land of Azerbaijan on May 29, 1918 and the ancient cultural center of Azerbaijan Irevan was its capital. Thus, in the result of purpose oriented expansionist policy begun and implemented by Czar Russia a new ethnos ‐ Christian ethnos was brought to Southern Caucasus and a state was established for this ethnos on the area of Azerbaijan. Since that time Southern Caucasus has become a new tension hearth of the world. …Today the traditional policy related to Southern Caucasus is being continued again. Armenian nationalists enticed, armed and thoroughly protected by their defenders didn’t leave their aggressor feature. Great countries use “Armenian card” in order to safeguard their position in Southern Caucasus. Being encouraged by their foreign defenders Armenians try to

9 REAL HISTORY establish the second Armenian state on the area of Azerbaijan – in Garabagh. The Armenians enticed by great countries dream to establish “Great Armenia” thanks to the lands of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. One of the most realities of the modern world is that the Armenian nationalists continue to convince about existence of the illusion of “Great Armenia” that never existed and notwithstanding that this illusion will not realize, the power centers use the “Armenian card” for their regional interest. In the result, Southern Caucasus continues to be the international tension center. Willy‐nilly you think that how long can hundred‐ faces political tricks, “standards” changing without stop, these games of international scale filling with aversion continue? Finally, how long will Armenians deteriorated relations with its neighbors believe in enticed promises? …Thus, I have composed the subject with call come from my inside. How much troubles can a people ‐ my people be undergone within the last 200 years? How many times can the land of a people be cut and divided? How many times can this people be massacred, deported from their land and appropriate their land, be driven away and scattered about the world as they are Turkish moslems? How long can the criminals establishing a state by appropriating the land

10 and confabulation on great Armenia of other people, not being satisfied by occupying lands, committing Khojali tragedy in front of eyes of the world just yesterday, at the end of XX century be defended? How long will continue religious discrimination, Christian solidarity and disgust to in the world policy? When will the mischief‐making political games played in the different power centers related to Azerbaijan be ended? Thus, I present the book “Real Historyand confabulation on great Armenia” to the readers as an Appeal. I present it, because isn’t it time to stop the policy of hostility against the neighbor people by the call “Great Armenia” that never existed and will not exist in the future either? How will be the end of this world if every people, as well as my people stand up to restore their empire continued for decades, centuries and existed in the history? Generally, is it possible? Can the power centers have already shared the world allow it? In this case, is it time to take off hands from the illusion “Great Armenia” that will never realize? Till when will Armenian nationalists be in tow of the foreign forces using “Armenian card” and will become the victim of this policy without perspective by making their people enemy with the neighbor people? Finally, while presenting my thoughts about this subject worrying me for many years I remember my favorite student and dear friend passed away

11 REAL HISTORY prematurely, skillful connoisseur of ancient history Mirzayev Mirheydar Nazar and exchange of ideas periodically held about this subject. We planned to compose a big joint work on this subject. We are not fated. And I had to compose this close research alone. I composed it both to pay my devotion debt. While preparing the book “Real Historyand confabulation on great Armenia” for publication the scientific editor of the work and skillful investigator of the ancient history and cuneiforms Allahverdi Alimirzeyev approached responsibly to the work that he assumed and reviewed the manuscript of the book and controlled the quotations for many times, made precisions on the basis of inscriptions with cuneiforms known to him, enriched the work with necessary amendments and additions. Thus, I consider myself indebted to transfer my thanks towards Allahverdi Alimirzeyev to the readers.

12 and confabulation on great Armenia

Armenians moved to Asia Minor from Balkan peninsula

What is the purpose in the confabulation of “Great Armenia”?

It was pretended in the Armenian science and the historians loving Armenians if history that as if the state called “Great Armenia” existed some time and the area of this confabulated “state” was exaggerated and reached to the fantastic limit thanks to the lands of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia on the paper. The first sources certify that this pretension has no scientific basis and it is a lie from the beginning to the end. It is a lie and therefore there are proofs relying on serious sources on neither the time when the notion “Great Armenia” was recalled for the first time, nor existence of such state, neither the history when it existed, nor the pretended boundaries of that “state”. But despite of it, nowadays the Armenian nationalists are guided by the confabulated boundaries of the confabulation of “Great Armenia”and continue to pretend the areas of the neighborhood states, present the Armenians as the people endured sufferings to the world and try to involve and the region in the dangerous counteractions.

13 REAL HISTORY

Making the confabulated notion “Great Armenia” remembered as a geographical name in some sources and in the reality applied to a small area at one time reactionary religious ideological and terrorist “doctrine” by “enlarging” it thanks to the areas of the neighborhood states on the paper and making political, implementing massacres and forwarding deportation policy to the Azerbaijanis and , continues terrorism acts were based on reliable proofs in the science of history of Azerbaijan1. Besides, in the modern stage the forces trying to give “scientific support” to the Armenian aggressors and their supporters in the solution of false “Mountainous Garabagh” problem bring the confabulation “Great Armenia” to the agenda, continue to publish maps having no basis. Their disgusting purpose is to substantiate that the Armenians moved from the areas of Iran of Gajars and Ottoman Empire to the land of The northern Azerbaijan, as well as to Mountainous Garabagh and Irevan khanate according to Turkmenchay (1828) and Adirna (1829) agreements were not come ethnos, but the “aborigine people”, i.e., “the most ancient local inhabitants” of these places.

1 Encyclopedia of Azerbaijan People’s Republic in 2 volumes, I volume, Baku, 2004, page 263-265, , in seven volumes (from the ancient times to III century BC), Baku, 1988, page 329-332, Asadov S, myth about “Great Armenia”, Baku, 1999, page 54-58, 75-96, 100-151- /in Azerbaijan language/.

14 and confabulation on great Armenia

The persons who falsify the history try to “substantiate” that the Armenians moved to Mountainous Garabagh belonging to Azerbaijan only 180 years before are entitled “to determine their fortune” and thereby present an additional “scientific proof” to the political brokers being in anti‐Azerbaijan position. They forget that not only Mountainous Garabagh, but also the area where the state called “Armenia Republic” is the ancient land of Azerbaijan. The Armenians were moved to those lands, i.e., to the area of Irevan khanate being and Zengezur the ancient lands of Azerbaijan by Czar Russia 180 years before. Therefore, the subject that we deal with is a serious problem from the point of view of reflecting the history of the people of Azerbaijan correctly and we will need to appeal this subject for many times in the future too.

15 REAL HISTORY

What does “the Father of History” Herodotus write about the origin of Armenians?

Answering to the expected comments to our opponents I want to state that utilization of the geographical notions as “Minor Armenia”and Big Armenia (not “Great” but big Armenia Y.M.) as well as “Midia Minor” and “Great Midia”, “Minor Phrygia” and ”Great Phrygia”, “Great ” and “Upper Cappadocia” in some antic sources is known to us. We will speak in detail ahead. Our principal purpose in implementing this investigation to show our attitude to a state called “Great Armenia” and to the matter whether such country existed within the boundaries stated in the Armenian maps and to share our considerations with our readers. I consider that elucidation of this matter is more actual and important for our history and science of history in the modern stage. Before beginning the explanation of the matter interesting us, let’s remember the facts to be commented in the bibliography of history onidentification of the Armenians, the time and the place that they came to Minor Asia, since when they were called by the name “Armenian”. The first information related to the source of Armenians, as well as the most reliable information that have kept its importance belong to “the father of

16 and confabulation on great Armenia history” Herodotus (480‐424 b. J.C.). This Greek historian lived in the V century BC writes that the supposed ancestors of Armenians moved to Asia Minor from (from the neighborhood of Macedonia) (VII, 73) 2 . Concrete information of Herodotus about it is so: “Armenians migrated from the land of Phrygia were armed as Phrygians”. («Арме‐ нии же, будучи переселенцами из Фригийской земли, имели фригийское вооружение»). In the original the expression interesting us is called so: ‐ “evicted Phrygians”3 or “Phrygian expatriates”4. The Byzantine writer Stephan (end of V century ‐ beginning of VI century)gives the information of the Greek author Knidly Endox lived 1000 years before him: That information is expressed so in the of the famous orientalist I. M. Dyakonov:

2 References made to Herodotus are given in accordance with the following publication: History on nine books, Translation and comments of G.A. Stratanovski, Under general edition of S.L.Utchenko, Editor of the translation N.A.Mesherskiy, Publishing house “Nauka”, Leningrad branch, Leningrad, 1972‐/ in Russian language/. 3 Kapanchyan G. Historical‐linguistic works. About initial history of Armenians, Ancient Asia Minor, Erevan, Publishing house AN Arm, USSR, 1956, page 164‐/ in Russian language/. 4 Dyakonov I.M. Khets, Phrygians and Armenians. Problem of the , Asian collection. Questions on the science about khets and khurrits. Moscow, Publishing house of the eastern literature, 1961, page 353‐/ in Russian language/.

17 REAL HISTORY

“Armenians are from Phrygian5 origin and look like the Phrygians upon their language”. Another Byzantine author Yevstafi (XII century) refers to the Greek author lived 10 centuries before him Dionisi Periget and states the proximity of Phrygian languages6. The investigators based on the information of the authors and suppose that the ancestors of Armenians left the Balkan peninsula in the wave of Phrygian tribes and migrated to Asia minor, to the land of Turkey at the end of II millennium BC. By the way, though that this migration comes across with the declination of Het czarism being the most powerful state of Anadolu frm the chronicle point of view, it is interesting that neither Phrygians, nor the Armenians are stated in the texts of Het. Besides, it is known that the Phrygians established a czarism which the center was Gordion on the valley of Sangaria (modern Sakarya) in the VIII century BC and tried to interfere in the political processes of he region.

5 Dyakonov, the , Ancient languages of Asia Minor, Moscow, 1980, page 364‐/ in Russian language/. 6 Dyakonov I.M., Past history of the Armenian people, Moscow 1968, page 194, comment 16. G.B.Jaukyan pretends wrongly that this information was given by Dionis from Halikamas. See: Jaukyan G.B., Stories about history before the written period of the Armenian language. Yerevan, 1967, page 30‐ / in Russian language/.

18 and confabulation on great Armenia

The effort to relate the origin of the

Armenians “to the ancient Eastern

Story” failed

There were the people who tried to find out the traces of migration of the ancestors of Phrygians and Armenians (“protoarmenians”) to Anadolu in the Eastern inscriptions among the researchers. Consequently, it complicated and falsified the solution of the problem. For example, a German orientalist H.Vinkkler forwarded the supposition to identify the char of country being one of the participants of the military union established against the ruler of Sargo the II (722‐705 BC) with the char of Phrygia stated in the information of Herodotus7. Afterwards, it became one of the principal proofs in identification of Phrygians and Mushks. It is necessary to state that differing from the term “Phrygia”, the ethnos known with the name “mushk” was known to the clerks composing the Assyrian military annals many years before. For example, it is known from the annals of the czar of Assyria Tiglatpalasar (1115‐1077 BC) that “20000 people

7 Winckler H, Die Reiche von Kilikien und Phrygien im Lichte der altorientalischen.\\Altorientalische Forschungen, II, 2, Leipzig, 1898, page 131‐137.

19 REAL HISTORY from the state of mushks”8 located on the area of Alzi and Purulumzi kingdom located at the upper flow of river under 5 czars. Taking into account that mass flow of the people will exert a serious impact on the demographic condition of the region and will threaten the countries, Assyrians met for the first time with mushks on the area of Mittanni under the leadership of Ashshur‐resh‐ishin (1133‐1115 BC)9. The first battle was unsuccessful for Assyrians. The next military operations against mushks occurred in 1114 BC on the area of the kingdom of Katmuhi (or Kutmuhi) (between Tur‐Abdin mountains and Tigris). In this battle finished by victory of the troops of Triglatpalasar the I, 6000 mushk fighters were taken as prisoners 10 . Besides, there is such information that other Assyrian ruler Ashshur –

8 In the source: 20 LIM LU, MEŠ. KUR.Muš‐ka‐ia.MEŠ. Dyakonov I.M. Assyrian – Babylonian sources on history, Urartu\\Messenger of ancient history, 1951, N 2, text N 10, Grayson A.K.The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.Assyrian periods.Vol 2, Assyrian Rulers of the Early first Millenium BC I (1114‐859 BC), Torono – Buffalo – London 1991, pp 14‐16, t text AO, 87.1. It is supposed that the state of Mushks was located on the area of present Mush province. 9 Dyakonov I.M., Asia Minor and Armenia in 600 BC and the northern campaigns of Babylonian czars.\\ Messenger of Ancient history. 1981, N2, page 51‐/ in Russian language/. 10 Dyakonov I.M. Assyrian – Babylonian sources N10, Grayson A.K. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.Assyrian periods.Vol 2, Assyrian Rulers of the Early first Millenium BC I (1114‐859 BC)….text AO, 87.1‐/ in Russian language/.

20 and confabulation on great Armenia nazirapal the II (883‐859 BC) levied tax consisting of sheep and goats, wine and copper from mushks11. Mushks were stated among the allies of czar of Urartu Rusar the in the inscriptions of Sargo the II (722‐ 705 BC) for the last time in cuneiforms12. “Country of Musks” was stated once in Urartu contexts, in the instructions of Rusan the II (685‐645) in connection with captivation of woman prisoners13. As the instructions of cuneiforms were not enough for determination of ethnic identification of mushks, the linguists are based on different suppositions and the assistance of linguistic methods and try to elucidate the solution of the problem. Thus, till 60th years of XX century the soviet historians and linguists identified the mushks with quartwel (Georgian) tribe known under the name of “moskhoi” in the antic sources14. That is to say that they declare that the mushks are not of Armenian origin, but of Georgian origin.

11 Luckenbill D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and , New York, 1968, Vol I, § 442 12 Luckenbill D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, New York, 1968, Vol I, § 43 13 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu. Moscow, 1960, N 278‐/in Russian language/. 14 Kapanchyan G. Historical‐linguistic works. page 144‐147. Melikishvili G.A. Ancient eastern materials upon the history of the peoples of Transcaucasus ( ‐ Urartu). 1954, page 315‐316‐ /in Russian language/.

21 REAL HISTORY

Beginning from 1961 the soviet orientalist I.M.Dyakonov appeared with his totally new supposition in his some works directed to the solution of the matter. His conclusions based on the suppositions may be summarized as following: The first “wave” of mushks, i.e. migration of “eastern musks” (or “protoarmenians”) to the land in the upper part of Euphrates river comes across to XII century BC, and “western mushks” (Phrygians) located in Anadolu three centuries later. Early migration of Armenians to Anadolu is based on existence of the terms from three different languages such as het, Assyrian and alarodi (hurri‐urartu). I.M.Dyakonov considers that the events of later periods (VIII‐VII century BC) are reflected profoundly enough at Assyrian and Urartu inscriptions and if migration of Armenians came across with this period, then this migration would be reflected in those writings. I.M.Dyakonov who accepts without doubt the information of Greek authors writing that the Armenians have Phrygian origin relates mushks with Indian‐European language family and even considers the ending “k” available in the term “mushk” as the ethnotoponimic formant available in the Armenian language.15

15 Dyakonov I.M. Khets, Phrygians and Armenians. Problem of the Armenian language, … page 333‐368, the same. ., Past history of the Armenian people… page 203‐209, 214‐227, The Phrygian language…,

22 and confabulation on great Armenia

At the present time his above‐mentioned idea is supported by other investigators too.16 Thus, basing on the scientific investigations implemented up to the present time it is possible to state that the information written about the Armenians related to a period of 600 years from the middle XII century BC (the period when migration of “protoarmenians” to the upper part of Euphrates river is supposed) to the second half of VI century BC are based on suppositions, hypothesis, probabilities and it is certified neither by the results of archeological excavations nor information available in Assyrian annals, nor the philological analysis of the names of places and persons. The excavations implemented by Turkish and Eastern archeologists around Konya, Nighde, discovered the traces of archeological culture that had not been discovered before. Neither the page 357‐377, the same, Asia Minor and Armenia in 600 BC …, page 51‐60, the same, About the history of the Armenian language (about facts, proofs and logic.)\\Historical‐Phylological journal, Yerevan, 1983, N 4, page 169, the same, Urartu, Phrygia, Lidia\History of the ancient world, Book 2, Blossoming of ancient societies, Moscow 1989, page 47‐68‐/in Russian language/. 16 Borker‐Klahn J, Zur Herkunft der Bezeichung Muski \Frige e Frigue, Rome, 1997, page 249‐260, Kosyan V.A., Luvians, phrygians and mushks (about ethnographic history of Asia Minor in VIII‐VII BC), History and languages of the Ancient East, memories of Dyakonov, SPb, 2002, page 187‐196.

23 REAL HISTORY chronological frame, nor the source of its carriers was exactly determined of this culture distinguished by geometrical ornaments and decorative designs. This culture is conditionally called “Old Phrygian culture” («Старофригийская культура»)17. But discovery of this culture in the east of Anadolu and the north‐west of Iran, i.e., in the basin of the lake Urmiya of Southern Azerbaijan (Korujutepe, Gozelova, Adiyaman, Norshuntepe, Deyirmantepe, Pulur, Goytepe and other places) at that period (Last Bronze period) and relation with local culture connected with “eastern mushks” is very disputable. Because the material examples of this local culture correspond to the elements peculiar to of Southern Caucasus18. As the results obtained from the analyses of calligraphy of the contexts where mushks are remembered reveal new details related to the history of these tribes, we consider necessary to speak in detail about it. There were more than ten tribes on the upper areas of the bank of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates and on the areas bordered with that region in XIV‐XI centuries BC According to the terms of Shumer‐akkad origin (SU.BIR>subartu) they are called “Shubaru countries” in the Assyrian annals and they were divided

17 Dyakonov I.M., Past history …, page 131. /in Russian language/. 18 Kosyan V.A., Luvians, phrygians and mushks…, page 188‐189‐ /in Russian language/.

24 and confabulation on great Armenia into “mountainous” (Nihani, Teburzi, Madani, Pabhi, Alzi, Purulumzi) and “foothills valley” (Kutmuhi\ Katmuhi, Pushshi, Mummi) countries. Some of them, as well as 8 provinces ‐ Mashgun, Zingun, Uatkun, Salua, Luha, Nilipahri, Halila and Himme included in Uruatri (future Urartu\Biayni czarism) tribe unionsare remembered in the annals of in connection with the military raidsmadeto this places in the first half of XIII century before J.C19. As MAŠ sign can express BAR syllable in Assyrian – Babylonian cuneiform system20, the name of the first province, i.e. of Mashgun province is sometimes read as “Bargun”21 in the scientific literature. Calling the name of Urartu province not as Bargun, but Mashgun is certified by Adiljevaz inscription of Rusa the II. Besides Zikioni toponym (Zingun in the annals of Salmanasar I) KUR.mu‐uš‐ki‐ni (“place of mushks”) is remembered too in that inscriptions22.

19 Dyakonov I.M. Assyrian – Babylonian sources on history…, N 2, , Grayson A.K. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.Assyrian periods.Vol 2, Assyrian Rulers of the Early first Millenium BC I (1114‐ 859 BC), Torono – Buffalo – London 1986, pp 183, t text AO, 87.1. 20 Labat R. Manuel d’epigraphic Akkadienne, (signes syllabaire, ideogrammes) Paris, 1952, N 74 21 Melikishvili G.A. Ancient eastern materials …page 150, 154, 177, Arutuyunyan N.V., Toponymy of Urartu, Yerevan 1985, page 53, 152, 229, 231‐ /in Russian language/. 22 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu… № 278‐/in Russian language/.

25 REAL HISTORY

Besides, if taking into account there was not the difference of sign in the writing of deaf, voiced and emphatic consonants in Assyrian cuneiforms (for example, the syllable QU could express the syllabus – ku and kü)23, in this case it is possible to read the group of signs where the place names are written in the annals of Salmanasar as Maš‐gu‐un, Maš‐qu‐un or Maš‐kus‐un. The name of the province as “Mashgun” was stated so among the place names of Urartu in the inscriptions of the Assyrian czar Ashshurbelkal (1076‐1059 BC)24. It is possible to pursue the replacement of ‐a‐ and ‐u‐ each other in some stranger place names in the Assyrian texts. Manna\\Munna, Arme\\Urme, Urattas\\Uratus (Mada\Midia city near Hemedan) and etc,.may be cites as an example. Such kind of writings may be explained as the case coming forward from the absence of a special sign expressing the sound ‐o‐ in the cuneiform system or from the dialect difference. All above mentioned facts show that in the nominative case Mashkun and Mushku are different writing forms of the same place name (Mushkil, Mushkini in the genitive case). The ending ‐n in these

23Labat R. Manuel d’epigraphic Akkadienne…, № 559 24 Grayson A.K.The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia.Assyrian periods. Vol 2, Assyrian Rulers of the Early first Millenium BC I (1114‐ 859 BC), …, p. 91, t text AO, 89.2

26 and confabulation on great Armenia variants conforms to ethnotoponymical suffix – niin urartu (or biani) language. Thus, the implemented calligraphic and philological investigations show that “the country of mushks” was an administrative unit not of the Indian Europeans come from abroad, specially of protoarmenians, but of autokhton inhabitants, i.e. local people. G.A.Melikishvili localize this administrative union included in Urartu tribe union in the period of Salmanasar I on the south east from the . Coming of mushks from and transferring Anadolu from the west to the east in the period when Het state was still strong and not taking this migration into account by the composers of annals was not possible. Not remembering mushks in the texts of Het gives information about the fact that hets never were in contact with this ethnic group. Leaving the previous home land by 20000 mushks and taking refuge in Alzi and Purulumzi in 1165 BC maybe was related not to the political processes happening in the region, but to the natural disasters (earthquake, flood and etc.). It is also necessary to state that the ethnogeographical term of local origin “mushk” (or “mashk”) was noted in more ancient periods too. It is possible to see this term in the name of the kingdom Simashki (a state union of federative structure existed between Hamadan and Urmiya lake, i.e., on the area of

27 REAL HISTORY historian Azerbaijan and managed by a dynasty of origin) 25 and in the name of the czar 26 Imashku Lullubi27 . From this point of view,the ideas given on identification of mushks and Phrygians basing on harmonious sounding of the names Mita and Midas, in other words on an unsuccessful comparison has lost its scientific value. It is interesting that the word ‐ mita is as a component in Manna and Mada antroponyms. This component was noted in “Mitatti” (governor of Zigirtu province of Manna, II half of VIII century), Amitashshi (governor of Karalla province of Mada, II half of VIII century), Mamitiarshu (one of the leaders of the rebellion of Assyrian directed against Mada) and in other names. All this irrefutable facts are related to historical areas of Azerbaijan. In a word, the stated facts prove that identification of mushks neither with Phrygians nor with Armenians has any scientific basis. It is possible to certify with certainty that the ending of the term “mushk” (or “mashk”) has no relation with the ethnotoponymic affix – k

25 Pott D.T. Archeology of Elam.Formation and Transformation of an ancient Iran state. Cambridge, 1999, page 130‐149. 26 The fact that were one of the tribes of Azerbaijan is known to the science for a long time. 27 Klengel H. Lullu (bum)\\Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vordera‐ siatischen Archaologie, Siebet Band, Berlin, 1987‐1990, page 166.

28 and confabulation on great Armenia available in the Armenian language28. In other words, trying to determine the ethnic idenity of any people by an affix is nothing than an absurdity. It is necessary to state that the implemented linguistic investigations show that though that the Phrygian and Armenian languages are included in the same language family, they are different languages. To be more true, though that both languages are included in the Indian European language family, there are enough differences between them. The difference is not limited by only lexicological materials and certain grammatical indicators. The principal distinguishing sign is that the Armenian language corresponds to SATEM and the Phrygian language to KENTUM group in the language family that they are included. From this point of view it is said that the Armenian language is close with Thrace and Greek languages29. I.M.Dyakonov writes about it: “the Armenian language is not so close to the Phrygian language in order to suppose that this

28 By this logic, it would be possible to consider the ethnos kashka lived in the bank of of Anadolu (Pont plateau)and turukku noted in the south west of Urmiya lakeas the relatives of Armenians in II millennium BC. But the first stated ones were presented as the ethnos relative with present Abkhaz‐adigey people, and the second ones with hurries. 29 Kapanchyan G. Historical‐linguistic works…, page 165, Dyakonov I.M., The Phrygian language,…, page 372‐376‐ /in Russian language/.

29 REAL HISTORY language was generated from the Phrygian language” («…близость же армянского языка с фригийским не очень велика, чтобы можно было вывести армянский из фригийского») 30. O. Haas considers that the tribes close to Armenians lived in Thrace and as their language looked like the Armenian language, the Greek historians wrongly concerned this resemblance with Phrygians migrated from Thrace31. It is not accidental that even one fact was not noted about the Armenians in the Phrygian texts which the context has been determined up to the present time.

The claim of the Armenians to be people having Anadolu origin was not affirmed

Beginning from 40th years of XX century, the falsification of the ethnic identity of the Armenians entered to a new stage: the writings not about their migration to Asia Minor, but being a people of Anadolu origin begin to appear in the scientific literature. Thus, the kingdom of Hayasa named in the texts of Het was chosen as the first target in the investigations held around the

30 Dyakonov I.M. Khets, Phrygians and Armenians…, pp 358 31 Haas O., Armenier und Phryger\\Linguistique Balcanique, III, 2, Sofia, 1961, pp 64‐65.

30 and confabulation on great Armenia terms related to the ethnic identity of the Armenians. The language material of Hayasa was represented by antroponyms and toponymy. Some names of person (Aissias, Anniyas, Mariyas, Muttis, Hukannas, Karannis, Qabildiy, Arihbizzi), God (Zaqqaqa, Unakkastas, Utaktannas, Paltaik, Tarumus, Terittutunus) and place (Shamuha, Dankuva, Inqalava, Kummaha, Dukamma, Halimana, Qannuvara, Ishmiriqqa, Zazzisa, Tibia) were stated in the texts of Het. Though that G.Kapansyan looking through these names states that they are not of Indian European origin, he tries to relate the name “” that they give to themselves with the name of the country Hayasa and in such a way he is looking for the ethnic roots of Armenians not in Balkans, but in Anadolu32. In other words, he tries to prove that the Armenians are the aboriginal, i.e. local ethnos of Anadolu. G.B.Gaukyan claims that the language of the inhabitants of hayasa may be related to the group of Indian European Languages, but it doesn’t look like the phonetic structure of the Armenian language changed under the influence of ancient substrate languages of Anadolu33. It is worthy to state that the affix – sa (or ‐ssa) in the name “Hayasa” was not noted in the Armenian language. Against it, the affix – k available in the

32 Kapanchyan G. Historical‐linguistic works…, page 27‐98, ‐ /in Russian language/. 33 Jaukyan G.B, The khayak language and its attitude to Indian‐ European languages. , Yerevan, 1964, page 84‐95‐ /in Russian language/.

31 REAL HISTORY

Armenian language was not observed at any of the languages of Anadolu, as well as in hayasa and Phrygian languages. I.M.Dyakonov affirms that the language Hayasadaki had not any relation with the Armenian language34. It is supposed that the inhabitants of Hayasi are one of the ethnos included in hurri35 group36. From this point of view, resemblance of a part of the language materials of Hayasa with the place names in Madada gives rise to interest. For example, it is possible to compare the antroponyms Aissias and Zaqqaqa with the place names Ausiash in Manna and Zabqaqa in Madada.37 So, these valuable facts are directly related with the history of Azerbaijan and its ethnos. At the present time a group of the investigators even try to relate the source of Hayk>Hay ethonoterm with the name of Het kingdom too. As the people located in the west of the upper part of Euphratesstated in Assyrian and Urartu inscriptions in I millennium BC were the citizens of Het state, they are generalized and called “inhabitants of

34 Dyakonov I.M., Past history…, page 210‐213 35 Hurris were one of the ancient tribe unions of Azerbaijan. 36 History of the ancient East.Origin of ancient class societies and first hearths of the civilization of slaveholders. Part II, Moscow 1988, page 146, note 1. ‐ /in Russian language/. 37 Ancient history of Azerbaijan in the cuneiform sources (Translator and composer, author of foreword and comments S.Gashgay), Baku, 2006, pp 54, 101. ‐ /in Azerbaijan language/.

32 and confabulation on great Armenia

Het state”, “hats” (Hate in the Assyrian language and from Hatini in the Urartu language) with the anachronicle term. In the limited meaning this expression concerns (or Melitena, modern Malatya)38.I.M.Dyakonov supposes that this term was in the form “Hat’ios” in the “protoarmenian” language, as if Hayo became Hay in time39. But in this case the author cannot substantiate loss of the phenomenon – t – by any fact.

The effort to relate the ancient history of Ar menia with Caucasus was affirmed as falsification

There were the historians who looked for the ancestors of Armenians in the work “Historical bibliography” of Diodore from Sicily. It is stated in the work that the tribe “khay” (χαοι in the original XIV, 29) was located near the river Fasis (present Rioni). Without controlling other synchronous sources, P.Krechmer identified the name of this tribe with the ethnoterm of the Armenians40. But a little later it was revealed that we are

38 Arutunyan N.V., Toponymy of Urartu…, pp 226‐227 ‐ /in Russian language/. 39 Dyakonov I.M., About history of the Armenian language…, page 172, History of the ancient East…, pp 124, note 1 ‐ /in Russian language/. 40 Kretschmer P, Der nationale Name der Armenier Haikh\\Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Rom (philos.‐hist.‐klasse).1932, I‐ VII, pp 1‐9

33 REAL HISTORY speaking about taokhs (tαοχοι) of Georgian origin in the relevant place (IV, 7, 1) of the work “Anabasis” Xenophon being the origin of this information of Diodore. Therefore, χαοι available in the work of Diodore was estimated as the terminological fault41. Consequently, the most violent Armenian historians were obliged to confess the irrefutable reality that delivered a blow in approach of the Armenians to Caucasus42.

The claim on inheritance of the legacy of ancient Urartu of the Armenians failed

I.M.Dyakonov tries to find an answer to such an important question in his investigations: “if the protoarmenians lived on the upper part of Euphrates from XII century BC, then why don’t the annals of Urartu remind it? Why don’t we meet the traces of the Armenian language in the names of dynasties known to us from the onomastics, especially from the annals of XI‐VII century («…если протоармяне жили в бас‐ сейне Верхнего Евфрата уже с ХII в. до н.э., то почему их никогда не упоминают урартские надписи?... И

41 Latishev V.V., Information of the ancient writers about Skif and Caucasus\\Messenger of the ancient history. 1947, N 4, pp 319, note 2 ‐ /in Russian language/. 42 Manandyan Y.A., About some disputable problems of history and of . Yerevan, 1956, pp 70, 75. ‐ /in Russian language/.

34 and confabulation on great Armenia

почему нет следов армянского языка в местной ономастике, в частности среди династических имен, известных по надписям XI‐VII вв. до н. э.»)43? There is no information in Urartu inscriptions widely reflecting the map of the region about the Armenians claiming the legacy of Urartu and doing all their best. The reasons of this fact shall be explained by serious proofs. Although, the “arguments” forwarded by I.M.Dyakonov about it are nothing than the suppositions. We present the answers given by the scientist to the questions put by himself: “Apparently, the answer to this question should be so. As a rule, the texts of Urartu reflect the provinces or valleys (gavars in Armenian terminology), but they don’t show the ethnic belonging of their people. It is absolutely possible and even obvious that Alzi and other provinces (Arme, Ishua, Supa, Suhma)44 were the people speaking in the Armenian language but the names of those dynasties didn’t reach to us («Ответы на этот вопрос должны быть, по‐видимому, (kursiv is– Y.M.) таковы. Урартские надписи вообще, как правило, называют области или долины (гавары по армянской терминологии), но не называют этнической принад‐ лежности его населения. Вполне возможно и даже

43 I.M.Dyakonov, Asia minor and Armenia nearly in 600 BC…, p 58 ‐ /in Russian language/. 44 Provinces of Upper Euphrates valley where the migrated Armenians located afterwards. – (‐Y.M.).

35 REAL HISTORY

вероятно, что область Алзи и некоторые другие (Арме, Ишуа, Цупа, Сухма) уже были в это время армяноязычными, но имена их династов до нас просто не дошли. В других случаях, в частности, на правобережье Верхнего Евфрата, в регионе «староф‐ ригийской» культуры, династии все еще оставались лувийскими, лувийским иероглифическим был и официальный язык. Однако основная масса насе‐ ления вполне могла тоже уже быть армяноязычной»). In the other cases, especially on the right bank of Upper Euphrates, in the region of “Old Phrygian” culture the dynasties were of luvi origin and their official language was hieroglyphic luvi language. But the principal mass of the population could speak the Armenian language.45” First of all, let’s show our attitude to his ideas consisting of confused suppositions. Let’s state in advance that the idea of the scientist that the texts of Urartu reflect the provinces or valleys (gavars in Armenian terminology), but they don’t show the ethnic belonging of their people is no the texts of Urartu reflect the provinces or valleys (gavars in

45 I.M.Dyakonov, Asia minor and Armenia nearly in 600 BC…, p 59. Unexpected utilization of the Armenia term Gavar in this context by the author is totally far from the context. From the genetic point of view there was no need to use an Armenian term while expressing the notions “Province” and “valley” of being stranger for the Armenians. These terms were written in the native terms in Urartu context: ebani (“country”. “province”, ”valley”), hubi (“valley”). See: Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu…, page 393, 396.

36 and confabulation on great Armenia

Armenian terminology), but they don’t show the ethnic belonging of their people correct. Thus, first of all, the names stating the ethnic belonging are remembered, secondly, in the most cases a state or a province is called by the name of the people that are located there46. In these cases, a cuneiform sign looking like a single vertical line was written in front of the place names as in the namesof men. This sign executing the determinative 47 function shows the relation of the place name that it accompanies with the name of the tribe. 48 For example, Abiani, Ardarakihi, Aza, Baltulhi, Erikuahi, Kabiluhi and other place names bore the names of tribes and ethnos. Therefore, it is not possible to connect lack of Armenian traces with this factor. Such kind of approach is a wrong approach. The consideration that the dynasties located in some of the provinces located on the bank of Upper Euphrates (Alzi and etc.) spoke the Armenian language (?), but not knowing their names (?), the principal mass of the population of the area where the dynasties of Luvia ruled and where the official language was the Armenian language (right bank of Upper Euphrates – Y.M.) (?) was

46 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu…,pp 415‐447, I.I.Meshaninov, Annotated dictionary of annotated the language of Urartu. Leningrad, 1978, pp 354‐356 ‐ /in Russian language/. 47 Deaf directing sign stating the category of the determinative notion, but not pronounced. 48 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu…,p.45 ‐ /in Russian language/.

37 REAL HISTORY not based on any proof. It is possible to say the same words about the attempt of I.M.Dyakonov on connecting the early history of Armenians with the kingdom Melid‐Kumanu (Melitena) established in the south‐east of Asia Minor after the destruction of Het state. We give this unsuccessful attempt of the scientist consisting of confused suppositions as it is: “The kingdom Melid Kumannu belonged to hurri‐luvvi dynasty till VIII century BC as other kingdoms available on the right bank (on the right bank of Upper Euphrates – Y.M.). But in any instance, the authority should be passed to a people speaking the Armenian language or an Armenian dynasty which the existence can be deemed affirmed. Generally, if we believe in less reliable story “Kiropedia” of Xenophon, it (that is to say that the existence of the people and dynasty speaking the Armenian language –Y.M.) had been ended in the middle of VI century BC. («Царство Мелид‐Кумману, как и другие царства правобережья (Верхнего Евфрата – Я.М.) имело вплоть до VIII в. до. н.э. хуррито‐лувийскую династию. Однако, в какой то момент власть должна была перейти (?) к армяноязыч‐ ному населению, существование которого здесь мож‐ но считать доказанным (? – Я.M.), и к армянской ди‐ настии. Если верить ксенофонтовой повести «Киро‐

38 and confabulation on great Armenia

педия», в общем мало достоверной, то к середине VI в. до н.э. это уже свершилось») 49 As it is seen, there is any first source certifying existence neither of any people speaking the Armenian language nor of Armenian kingdom on the valleys of Upper Euphrates and Upper Tigris in the historical period till VI century. It is not accidental that such a famous linguist and historian scientist I.M.Dyakonov was obliged not to base on the first sources, but only on the suppositions, probabilities and showed his subjective position having no scientific basis. Existence of some terms of akkad and alarodi (hurri‐urartu) origin in their languages can be shown as one of the “important” factors certifying location of Armenians at the upper flow Euphrates in the first half of I millennium. These lexical appropriations are limited by some terms and some plant names50. But these terms could be passed to the Armenian language later after the destruction of Assyria and Urartu states, in the period when this ethnos was the citizens of Ahamani and Selevki states. Some historians wrongly relate formation of Armenians as a people with the kingdom Arme being

49 I.M.Dyakonov, Asia minor and Armenia nearly in 600 BC…, p 59 50 Khachikyan M.L., Hurrit and Urartu languages, Yerevan, 1985, pp 55‐ 56.History of the ancient East.Origin of ancient class societies…, p. 106., ‐ /in Russian language/.

39 REAL HISTORY considered as a province of Urartu, but having no relation with the lands of Urartu. Besides some areas of the north of Syria, information about defeat of Arme state which the capital was Nihiriya is given in Van inscriptions51. It is obvious from the text thatArme state was far from the boundaries of Urartu and has no relation with Urartu state. G.A.Melikishvili identifies it with Arime (to the west from Shubria) place name available in the Assyrian texts and it is localized in the north‐west from Diyarbakir.52 Some authors suggest looking for Arme place names in more ancient texts. Thus, one of the epos speaking about the heroism of the ruler of Akkad Naram‐Suen (2236‐2200 BC) speaks about the victory over the czar of Armanum (or Armanim) and cities (Tall‐Mardihin modern Syria) Red Abad (Malakina in other version) 53 . A.Kifishin identifies the province Armanum with Arme in I millennium before J.C wihout any basis and considers it as one of the ancient names of Armenia54. Though, even in 1898 M.Shtrekk determined

51 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu…, N 156, DI 52 Melikishvili G.A., Wedge inscriptions of Urartu…,pp 420 53 Gadd C, Legrain L, Smith, Royal inscriptions Ur Excavations texts. 1. London, 1928, N 275. Dyakonov I.M. Social and state order of the Ancient Mesopotamia. Sumer. Moscow 1959, pp 232, 235. ‐ /in Russian language/. 54 Kifishin A. Geographic view of the ancient Sumers (2162‐2137 BC)\\Palestinian collection, Issue 13 (76), Moscow, 1965, p 66., ‐ /in Russian language/.

40 and confabulation on great Armenia the relation of this place name not with Armenians, but with aramis55. The archives of a strong political union ‐ Ebla city state existed here in XXVI‐XXIII centuries BCwere revealed during the excavations implemented by Italian archeologists in Tall‐Mardih settlement of Syria in 1970th. Two place names were stated in connection with our subject among more than thousand place names in the inscriptions kept here. One of them was Armanam city (or Armanim) joining to Antiakkad coalition available in the legends related to Armi Naram Suen, other name was Nagar city (on the bank of Habur river, in the north to modern Tall Hariri) and they are identified with the capital of Arme\Armi province Nihiriya in VIII century before J.C 56 . I.M.Dyakonov is right to state that the place name Armi available in Elba texts has no relation with ethnic Armenians57.

55 Streck M. Das Gebiet der heutigen Landschaften Armenian, Kurdistan unde Westpersien nach den babylanisch‐assyrischen Keilinschriften. Zeifschrift fur Assyriologue unde verwandte Gebiete. Dreizehnter band. Berlin, 1898, pp 80‐81. 56 Garelli P. Note on toponymy from the archives of Ebla\\Ancient Ebla. Moscow, 1985, pp 281, 284, 285. ‐ /in Russian language/. 57 Dyakonov E.M. The meaning of Ebla for history and linguistics.Ancient Ebla. Moscow. 1985, pp 336, The author writes: “Myth about Armenians, mentioned in the texts of Ebla” is obliged to be melt.”

41 REAL HISTORY

As it is seen, neither Armi\Arme, nor Nagar\Nihiriya khoronym has relation with ethnic Armenians and these cities were located within the boundaries of Elba state established by western sami tribes in the middle of III millennium. Thus, there is a reality that cannot be refuted in the science: the ancestors of Armenians were not the local inhabitants of ethnos Asia Minor and they migrated to the upper area of Euphrates from Balkan peninsula.

42 and confabulation on great Armenia

The names as “ARMINA”, “ARMENIYA” and ”ARMENIA”

(armyane) have no relation with modern

Armenians

How was the ancient Phrygians migrated from Balkan peninsula to Asia Minor or ethnos from the same root called “Armenian”? What is the origin of the word Armenia (armyane) or “Armeniya”? A term looking like the geographical name “Armeniya” was met for the first time in the inscriptions of Dara the I (522‐486 BC) on Bisutin rock. “Armina” is called among the states included in the empire Ahamani in that inscription 58 . I.M.Dyakonov tries to substantiate that the ancient Persian name “Armina” and the ancient Greek name “Armenioi” was formed from the name “armen‐aie” given by the Aramis of sami origin to the Armenians and in its turn it is related with the name of Arme province by origin (in the south from

58 History of the Ancient East.Text and documents. Moscow, 2002., pp 390. As there is no sign expressing the sign – e – in the ancient Persian consonant cuneiform system, it was not possible to write the term as “Armena”. In the writing systems based on Sumer‐Akkad cuneiform graphics, the open syllables having the sounds – e – and – i – are stated with the same signs. For example, IR sign could express er, and NI sign – ne – syllable. From this point of view it is possible to read the place name Ar‐me and Ar‐mi.

43 REAL HISTORY the source of Tigris) 59 . The investigators of “Arme” place name explain it as “state of Aramis” in letters60. It is obvious from here that the names arman‐aie, armeni, armenioi have no relation with the present ethnic Armenians. And in the reality the ethnos with Indian European language which the name is not known, i.e., the ethnos which is supposed the ancestors of the present ethnic Armenians, was called after the name of the state where the ethnos migrated from Europe to Asia Minor, i.e., “Armina”. In other words, the name “Armenian”is not the real history name of the present Armenians, it is the name that they privatized after having migrated to Asia. Armina is remembered among the states rebelling against Ahamanis whenDara the I came to the power in Bisutin inscriptions (the transcription form of the ancient Persian name in the elam version of the inscription Harminuya, Urashtu in Babil version 61 ). By the way, differing from other rebellious states, any information is given neither about the people rebelled in Armina, nor about the leader of rebellion and his claim. For example,

59 Dyakonov I.M., Asia Minor and Armenia in 600 BC…, pp 55‐56. ‐ /in Russian language/. 60 History of the Ancient East, under the edition of V.I.Kuzichin, Moscow, 2002, pp 214. ‐ /in Russian language/. 61 Urashtu form was stated in the inscription speaking about the events related to the destruction (609 BC) of the kingdom Assyria of the ruler of Babylon Nabupalasar

44 and confabulation on great Armenia let state for the comparison that it is stated soin lines 74‐ 80 of column I of Bisutin inscription62: “A man called Asina… rebelled in Elam…, then the inhabitants of Elam became the insurgents and passed to the side of Asia. He became a king in Elam. And another person, a Babyloniancalled Nidintu Bel… rebelled in Babylon…. afterwards all people of Babylon passed to the side of Nidintu Bel and he took the reign in Babylon.” We read in other place of the inscription, in lines 13‐17 of column II: “A person from Mada () called Fravartish rebelled…then the people of Mada … rebelled against me and passed to the side of Fravartish and he became a king in Mada.” It is possible to say that information is given about all rebellions in the same manner and with the same expressions excluding Armina. Information is given about other rebellion in Armina in lines 29‐63 of column II of Bisutin inscription: “King Dara says: I have sent an inhabitant of Armina called Dadarshish, my slave to Armina. I told him so: “Go and destruct the insurgents who don’t belong to me.” Then Dardarish started. When he reached to Armina, the insurgents assembled and were against Dardarish. They battled at a place called Zuza in Armina. Ahuramazda helped me.

62 Quotations cited from Bisutin inscriptions are given according to Melikov R, Ancient Persian inscriptions, Baku, 2013,

45 REAL HISTORY

My troops defeated the insurgent troops in accordance to the desire of Ahuramazda. It was the eight day of suravakhara month when there was a struggle there. The king Dara states: “”For the second time, the insurgents gathered to fight against Dadarshish. They fought in the castle called Tigra in Armina. Ahuramazda helped me. My troops defeated the insurgent troops in accordance to the desire of Ahuramazda. It was the eight day of suravakhara month when there was a struggle there. The king Dara states: “”For the third time, the insurgents gathered to fight against Dadarshish. They fought in the castle called Tigra in Armina. Ahuramazda helped me. My troops defeated the insurgent troops in accordance to the desire of Ahuramazda. It was the ninth day of saig‐rachish month when there was a struggle there. Then, when I came to Mada, Dadarish waited for me until I came to Mada. The king Dara states: “Then I sent a Persian called Vaumisa, my slave to Armina. Ahuramazda helped me. I told him so: “Go and destruct the insurgents who don’t belong to me.” Then Vaumisa started. When he reached to Armina, the insurgents assembled and were against Vaumisa. They battled at the province called Izala in Assyria. Ahuramazda helped me. My troops defeated the insurgent troops in accordance to the desire of Ahuramazda. It was the

46 and confabulation on great Armenia fifteenth day of anamaka month when there was a struggle there. The king Dara states: “For the second time, the insurgents gathered to fight against Vaumisa. They fought in the province castle called Autiyara in Armina. Ahuramazda helped me. My troops defeated the insurgent troops in accordance to the desire of Ahuramazda. The month suravakhara was ended when there was a struggle there. Then, when I came to Mada, Vaumisa waited for me until I came to Armina”. Different ideas are available about the ethnic belonging of the people fought in Armina in the science of history. For example, after serious investigations a famous orientalist V.V. Struve concluded that the people struggling against Dara the I in Armina were the saks63. Taking into account the flow of kimmer‐skif‐sak tribes to Asian Near East, as well as Southern Caucasus at the end of VIII century ‐ beginning of VII century BC and their active participation in the military political events of the region, existence64 of Skif (Sak) kingdom encircling

63 V.V.Struve, Studies upon the history of Northern Black Sea, Caucasus and Middle Asia, Leningrad, 1968, pp 10‐20. 64 See in details about Skif kingdom in Azerbaijan: I.M.Dyakonov History of Media, from the ancient times to IV century BC. Moscow‐ Leningrad, 1956, page 242‐254. Igrar Aliyev. About skifs and kingdom of skifs in Azerbaijan.Asian Near East collection. III.Moscow, 1979, pp. 4‐14. Y.B.Yusifov. Kimmers, skifs and saks in ancient Azerbaijan.

47 REAL HISTORY the eastern lands of The northern Azerbaijan (as well as the area of Azerbaijan where present Armenia is located on) and the land of Southern Azerbaijan around Urmiya, some provinces of Asia Minor in the middle of VII century – beginning of VI century BC, thus idea of V.V.Struve reflects the historical reality. Many years later after this event, some sak groups migrated to the area of Armina and located there. (XI, 8, 4) wrote about the next sak migration occurred in the middle of II cenruty BC : “Saks organized raids as kimmers and trers. Some raids were made in the distance, others close by. So, they occupied good lands in Baktriana and Armeniya and they (saks – Y.M.) called the province after themselves as Sakasena. They went to the state of the people of Cappadocia”. («Саки совершали набеги подобно киммерийцам и трерам: одни набеги более дальние, другие же‐на близкое расстояние. Так они захватили Бактриану и завладели лучшей землей в Армении, которой они оставили название от своего

Caucasian Near Eastern collection. Tbilisi, 1988, pp 181‐192. History of Azerbaijan.in 7 volumes.First volume…, pp 213‐217, 219‐225. Sakasena province of Northern Azerbaijan called after sak‐skifs. E.Kavenyak (Avropa propos du debut de l’histoire des .Journal Asiatique.1961, pp 156.)wrote that the empire of Skif encircling Caspiana, the north of Armeniya and Cappadocia had existed (reference to E.Kavenyak was made from I.V.Kuklina, of Skifs upon the historical sources, Moscow, 1985).

48 and confabulation on great Armenia

имени‐Сакасена; они дошли вплоть до страны каппа‐ докийцев…») 65. The inscriptions of the emperor of Roma Traya (53‐117 BC) were discovered during the excavations implemented in Kichik Vedi village in Western Azerbaijan in 1967 (on the area of present Armenia). Armenia is not remembered here. But notwithstanding it, it is claimed that the village discovered in those inscriptions was on the area of the capital of Armenia in that period. It is interesting that one of the inscriptions concerning 114‐115 BC deals with the dislocation of the legion of Skirf IV attached to Traya66. It is seen that this legion was comprised of saks located there and having sedentary life. I.M.Dyakonov doesn’t agree with the idea of V.V.Struve stating that the insurgents in Armina consisted of saks without any basis, i.e., without basing on concrete facts, but he cannot bring neat arguments certifying that they consisted of Armenians. According to I.M.Dyakonov who considers the insurgents as the

65 Aliyev K. Ancient Greek and sources upon the history of ancient Azerbaijan (with the examples from new discussions), Baku, 2010, pp 36, 56.Sakasena province in Armeniya that Strabo states (“place of Saks” in letters) shall be distinguished from the historical area of the same name of present Sheki‐Ganja zone where of Azerbaijan was located. 66 Arakelyan B.N., Latin inscriptions from the capital of ancient Armenia‐Artashat.Messenger of ancient history. 1971, N 4, pp 114‐118.

49 REAL HISTORY local people, relates calling them Armenians with the fact that at least 4 ethnic groups lived in Armina in that period67. Thus, the people rebelled againstDara the I were not the Armenians. As it is seen, I.M.Dyakonov doesn’t deny it. M.A.Dandamayev touching the matter of the character of the rebellion in Armina pretended that the insurgents were Armenians and tried to “substantiate” it with the following argument: “long‐term and persistent struggle of the insurgents proves that this movement achieved great support of the local people, i.e., of Armenians (? – Y.M.). As it is seen in Bisutun inscription that Armina was covered by the rebellion, maybe the author didn’t need to state specially the tribe belonging of the insurgents supposing that it was obvious” («…продолжительная и упорная борьба восставших свидительствует о том, что это движение пользовалось большой поддержкой местного населения, т.е. армян. Поскольку Бехистунская надпись указывает, что Армения была охвачена мятежом, вероятно, составитель этой надписи не видел необходимости особо отмечать племенную принадлежность мятеж‐ ников, полагая, что это и так ясно.»)68. Groundlessness of above‐mentioned “argument” of M.A.Dandamayev is obvious. First of all, as it is stated, besides migrated Armenians, local people lived in Armina

67 I.M.Dyakonov, History of Media… page 359. 68 M.A.Dandamayev, Political history of Ahamani state, Moscow 1985, pp 92. ‐ /in Russian language/.

50 and confabulation on great Armenia in that period and considering Armenians or only Armenians under the name of local people is against the historical reality and has no logic. Secondly, if the author didn’t need to state specially the tribe belonging of the insurgents supposing that it was obvious, are not the rebellion of Babylonians in Babylonia, of elams in Elam, of the inhabitants of Media, and others obvious? Thus, the inscription of Bisutin deals with the rebellion in Armina being the ancient place name, not with the rebellion of Armenians. Thus, the inscription Bisutin deals with the rebellion in the ancient place name, in Armina, not about the rebellion of migrated Armenians. In that period, in the positive case the migrated Armenians lived together with the local people of historical Urartu and had neither ethnic nor political superiority. As if, existence of any Armenian kingdom at the beginning of VI century puts the idea of their subordination to Media, then to Ahamini 69 in serious doubt. If such kingdom or statehood tradition was really available, as in other states available in Bisutin inscriptions, somebody in Armina would declare himself as a king and was dying for the freedom. Thus, ancient names “Armina”, ”Armeniya” or ”armenian” (“armyane”) have no relation with modern Armenians.

69 See: History of the Ancient World. Blossoming of the ancient societies. under the edition of I.M.Dyakonov and etc. Moscow, 1989, page 386. ‐ /in Russian language/.

51 REAL HISTORY

Where did ancient “ARMINA” that the Armenians declared themselves as the owner locate in?

The most exact information about the geography of the historical province in VI century BC is kept at Bisutin inscriptions. It is an interesting fact that the information about the rebellion in Armina is given in the context of description of struggle against freedom occurred under the leadership of Fravartish in Mada in this source (Media – Y.M.). The revolt continued for 7 months in Armina began during the course of the rebellion of Fravartish and terminated with it. In other words, the official source as Bisutin inscription presents the revolt occurred in Armina in the composition of the rebellion occurred under the leadership of Fravartish in Mada (Media – Y.M.) and shows that both of them are related to each other. After having suppressed the rebellion in Armina, the following declaration was given by Dara the I: “they were implemented by me in Mada (Media – Y.M.)” (lines 91‐92 of column II). Besides certifying our declarative idea, at the same time it certifies that Armina was included in Mada in 522 BC From this point of view, it is logical to characterize the movement Armina not as the “rebellion”, but as the revolt supporting the central rebellion.

52 and confabulation on great Armenia

After having suppressed the rebellions against Ahamanis Dara the I implemented a n administrative reform. He made modifications in the administrative area structure of Mada and excluded Armina and Asagartan (or Sagartiya, Zigirtu) from Mada 70 . It is obvious from the administrative reform of Mada that Armina was in the composition of Mada till this reform. The fact of management of Armina from the same center till the administrative reform made by Dara the I was known to Xenophon too. Xenophon states in his work “Kiropedia” (VIII, 7, 11) that the founder of Ahamanis Kurush the II appointed his son Tanaoxari (his real name was Bardiya – Y.M.) as the head of Mada, Armina and kadusi71. Four out of five fights taken part between the troops of Ahamani and insurgents of Armina were within this province and the other one was in other province of Mada within the area of Assyria Izala (in the eastern neighborhood of Armina, to the north east from Hardan, between river Habur and Mardin). The source of three of the place names of Armina remembered in Bisutin inscription (Zuza, Autiriya, Uyama) is not known not only in the Armenian language, but in none of the ancient Eastern languages

70 .Melikov R. Ancient Persian…, pp 373 71 Information is taken from M.A.Dandamayev, Political history …, page 66.

53 REAL HISTORY known to the science. The of the name Tigra castle means “pointed”, “sharp” in the translation from the Iranian language. It is seen that as this fortification locates on high top of mountain, it was called so. Armina is remembered as an administrative area unit in 6 official Ahamani inscriptions composed in the . Thus, it is recalled in two of 5 texts belonging to Dara the I, between Armina, Mada and Cappadocia, and between Egypt and Cappadocia in three of them. Only in the inscription “against Giants” of Xerox Armina was located between Arakhoziya and not conforming to the geographical position of Armina72. We meet the area where “Armina” is located in and the next information about Armenians in the work “History” of Herodotus mentioned above. According to the information given by a Greek author lived in V century BC, Armeniya was located to the north‐west from the lake Van, in the region where Euphrates began. Herodotus speaking about Babylon wrote: “…The city consist of two parts. A rived called

72 Melikov R. Ancient Persian…, pp 321, 336, 337, 342, 345, 352. The Armenian historians didn’t abstain from confabulation of the historical reality in order to substantiate their claim on land in Caucasus and claim that Armina satrapy was extended to in the north. See: History of Armenian people uo to the present times (under the edition of M.G.Nersiyan). Yerevan 1980, page 31.

54 and confabulation on great Armenia

Euphrates that takes the beginning from Armeniya passes through this city (i.e. Babylon –Y.M.)” ‐ «…Город же (Вавилон‐Я.М.) состоит из двух частей. Через него протекает река по имени Евфрат, берущая начало в Армении» (I, 180). In other place, Herodotus states that Armeniya is located “above “Assyria”, i.e., in the north (I,194 ‐ « В Армении, кото‐ рая лежит выше Ассирии.»). Herodotus included Armeniya in the 13th circle of Ahamani stave: “40 talants were included from Pactica, Armeniya and from the neighborhood provinces from Evxin to Pont. It is the thirteenth circle.” (III,93‐«Из Пактики, Армении и соседних областей до Евксинского Понта поступало 400 талантов. Это‐три‐ надцатый округ.»). The thirteenth circle encircling the areas in the west and the north east of the lake Van was usually wrongly described as “the Armenian circle”. But it is obvious from above‐mentioned information of Herodotus that “Pactica, and neighborhood provinces from Evxin to Pont” were included in this circle, that is to say that the people of the circle didn’t consist only of Armenians and its name was not an “Armenian circle”. While giving information about the paktis as the people included in the troops of Xerox, their uniforms and arms Herodotus recalls: “Paktis wore clothes made of goat skin, were armed with local arrow, bow and daggers (VII, 67)”. It is interesting that they were armed as the

55 REAL HISTORY ancient tribes of Azerbaijan “utis, miks, parikanis” ‐ (VII, 68‐««Пактии насили козьи шкуры, вооружены были местными луками и кинжалами»). Kaspis wore clothes made of goat skins, but they were armed by “arrows made of local reeds and Persian swords” (Утии, мики и парикании вооружены были подобно пактиям»). According to I.N.Khlopin commenting this information of Herodotus the people entered to the troops of Xerox and armed with the same type of arms should live in the real neighborhood with each other73. Basing on the localization of utis and miks, he considers possible the location of paktis “somewhere to the east or to the north east from Armenians” 74 . Information of Herodotus about the area of Armeniya gives reason to suppose that paktis were located to the west from the historical area of Azerbaijan ‐ Uti province 75 , above Araz river. There is nearly no information about the neighbor of Armenians, paktis in the thirteenth circle. From this point of view the writings of Herodotus about

73 I.N.Khlopin, Ethnography of Ahameni state according to Herodotus.States and peoples of the East. Issuance VIII, Moscow, 1969, page 284. ‐ /in Russian language/. 74 Again there, page 288‐289 75 See about Utis and Uti province: History of Azerbaijan. in seven volumes. First volume, page 333‐334.Melikov R. Ethnic picture of Azerbaijan in the period of Ahamenis (VI‐IV BC).

56 and confabulation on great Armenia paktis living in the east involces attraction: “…other Indian tribes lived near Paktika province and Kaspatir, to the north from other Indians.”(III, 102). According to other information of Greek historian, Dara the I sent an expedition consisting of the people that he relied on under the leadership of Skilak from kariand in order to determine the place where Indian was flown into the sea and they departed from Kaspatir city of Paktiya and swam till the sea downwards the river (IV, 44). I.N.Khlopin considers wrong the information of Herodotus about eastern paktis and his ideas about science of history and prefers the facts certifying their life in the west76. But recalling the name of the head city of Paktiya Kaspatir by Herodotus and other information about this city show that location of paktis both in the east (in the XIII circle of Ahamani state) and the west (in the west of present Afghanistan 77 and in the neighborhood province of Pakistan) is not groundlessness. The predecessor of Herodotus Hekatey also recalls Kaspatir city (identifies with present Pishavar 78 ) as the city located on the area of

76 I.N.Khlopin, Ethnography of Ahameni state…, page 288, 290. 77 There are two provinces called Paktiya and Paktika in the east of Afghanistan, with boundary with Pakistan. 78 Herodotus, History page 644 (indicator of names), See about other versions. B.A.Litvinskiy Ancient nomad “Covers of the world” Moscow, 1972, page 164‐165. ‐ /in Russian language/.

57 REAL HISTORY

Gandar\Gandhar (downwards flow of Kabil river and neighborhood regions on the basin of Indian river) and calls is “the bank of skif” or “the port of skif” 79 . B.A.Litvinski refers to Makvart and states that saks living between Gandahar and Baktriya B.A. Litvinski states that one of the groups of sak tribes, supposedly of sak – haumavargas lived on this area 80 . So, the mentioned eastern paktis belonged to sak tribes and it is possible to concern it to the paktis living in the west, in the thirteenth circle of Ahamani state. From this point of view, conception seeming reliable enough about migration of skif‐saks to the Southern Caucasus and Asian Near Eastfrom the east, from Middle Asia is noteworthy and elucidates contradicting information of Herodotus about paktis81. Thus, from this point of view it is possible to conclude that a part of saks, as well as sak‐paktis82 migrated to Southern Caucasus, as well as to the area of Azerbaijan and to the neighborhood provinces of Asia Minor through Baktriya and Iran and others located in the east of Afghanistan and within the area of Pakistan.

79 B.A.Latvinskiy, Ancient nomad “Covers of the world”, Moscow 1972, page 165 ‐ /in Russian language/. 80 Again there 81 I.V.Kuklina Ethnography of Skif…, page 110‐113 82 We will not persist on this matter as important role of saks in the history of Azerbaijan and the of people of Azerbaijan is known in the science.

58 and confabulation on great Armenia

Finally, the tribes residing “in the neighborhood provinces till Evxin Pont” included in the thirteenth circle of Ahamani state. I.M.Dyakonov writes thatthey were kartvels (ancestors of )83. Thus, different people lived on the area that Herodotus included in the XIII circle of Ahamani state and that circle was called as Armina not for the ethnic features, but on behalf of the state in Bisutin inscription. It has no relation with present Armenians. On the other hand, as mentioned above, lack of the expressions as “Armenians”, “Armenian people” in the information about the rebellion against Dara the I in Arminawas related with it. Notwithstanding all above mentioned facts, some historians widened the area of Armina to the east without any scientific basis and claimed as if the thirteenth circle of Ahamani state was an Armenian circle84. But the information given by Herodotus rejects these pretensions. As to Herodotus, (III, 94) matients, saspirs and alarodis lived in the XVIII circle: “200 talant tax was levied on matients, saspirs and alarodis. It is the eighteenth circle” («На матиенов, саспиров и алародиев была наложена подать в 200 талантов. Это‐ восемнадцатый округ»). The first people that is mentioned above –

83 I.M.Dyakonov, History of Media…, page 355 84 Again there, page 346‐347, 354‐355

59 REAL HISTORY ma(n)tients lived in Southern Azerbaijan, in the west and the north of lake Urmiya85. Herodotus distinguishes very clearly the area where the Armenians lived in and the land of ma(n)tients and writes that they were neighbors (V, 49). The information of the Greek historian about the “road of king” lying from the city Sard (center of the circle under the same name firstly of the state Lidia, then of Ahamanilar) to Suza (center of Elam state, then one of the capitals of Ahaminilar) shows that the state of ma(n)tients had the same boundaries with Armina on the upper areas of Tigris and Great Zab: “The boundary between Klikiya and Armeniya is Euphrates that is suitable for navigation. There are 15 stopping places in the distance of 56 1\2 (1 parasang = 5549 m – Y.M.) in Armeniya. The road leads to Mateina from here (Armeniya – Y.M.). There are 34 stopping places in the distance of 136 parasang (in Mateina). There are four rivers suitable for navigation…The first river is Tigris, then the second and the third rivers which are called Zabat86 (both) follow it. But they are different rivers and they don’t take their origin from the same place. The first river takes its origin from Armeniya and the second river takes its origin from Matiena. The

85 History of Azerbaijan in seven volumes.First volume, page 263. Melikov R. Ethnic picture of Azerbaijan ,.. 125‐126 86 Great and Little Zab rivers

60 and confabulation on great Armenia fourth river is called Indian 87 … “(V, 52: «Границу Киликии и Армении образует судоходная река по имени Евфрат. В Армении находится 15 стоянок … на протя‐ жении 56 ½ парасангов (1 парасанг =5549 м ‐ Я.М.). Из этой [Армении] путь ведет в Матиену; [здесь] 34 стоян‐ ки на расстоянии 136 парасангов. По этой стране проте‐ кают четыре судоходных реки… Первая река‐Тигр, затем вторая и третья под [одним] названием Забат. Но это‐ разные реки, и начинаются они не в одной местности. Первая из упомянутых рек течет из Армении, а вторая‐ из Матиены. Четвертая же река называется Гинд»). The second people that Herodotus recalled in connection with the XIII circle ‐ saspirs who are the ancestors of present Georgians lived on the upper banks of Chorokh river and were spread over the northern provinces after the destruction of Urartu state88. The investigators identify alarodis living in the north of the lake Van with the inhabitants of Urartu89. As it is seen, either the XIII circle and its area, nor its people have relation with the Armenians. The description of the “area of Armeniya” of this circle is against the historical reality and has the purpose to substantiate the pretension of Armenia on the lands of Southern Caucasus of present Armenia. It is possible to

87 Present Diyala river 88 G.A.Melikishvili. Ancient Eastern materials…, page 415‐416, 419‐420. 89 I.M.Dyakonov, Past history…, page 238

61 REAL HISTORY call it only an absurdity. Because, migration of Armenians to Southern Caucasus (as well as to the land of Azerbaijan where the Armenians live in at the present time – to the area of former Irevan khanate) by Czar Russia after Turkmenchay (1828) and Adirna (1829) agreements is certified by the documents of archives and initial sources.

62 and confabulation on great Armenia

Where was the area of “ARMENIYA” described at work “Anabasis” written by Xenophon?

The next Greek author giving information about the area of Armeniya is Xenophon (averagely 430\425‐ 355\354 BC). It is known that Xenophon participated in the fight of Little Kir against his father Artaxerx the II for throne in the composition of hired troops and was one of the commanders leading the Greek hired troops coming back home through Assyria, Armeniya and other areas after defeat of Little Kir near the village Kunax (90 km north from Babylon) in 401 BC. The fight way of the Greek troops, the area that they passed through while returning back and the people that they met were described enough in his work “Anabasis”90. According to the writings of Xenophon the Greeks beginning the movement from Kunax to the north forwarded to the north along Tigris on the east bank of the river, passed through the state of kardukh91

90 Examples brought from Xenophon were taken from Xenophon “Anabasis” (Translation, articles and comments of M.I.Maximov. Under the redaction of the academician I.I.Tolstoy). Moscow‐Leningrad, 1951 ‐ /in Russian language/. 91 Kardukhs lived in the west from the lake Urmiya, between upper areas of Great Zab and Tigris. There are the ideas that kardukhs were

63 REAL HISTORY very difficultly and reached to Kentrit river92. Xenophon shows that this river separates the state of kardukhs from Armeniya (i.e., “satrapy of Armenia”): “On that date they stopped to rest in the villages located above the plain near the river Kentrit. The width of the river is 2 plefr (1 plefr = 29.6 m), it separates Armeniya from kardukhs (IV:III, 1: «И этот день простояли на отдыхе в деревнях, лежащих над равниной у реки Кентрита; ширина реки два плефра, она отделяет Армению от страны кардухов… »)”. The attempt of the Persian of making hindrance in crossing the river failed. It is interesting that the name of Armenians is called among the hired troops in the information of Xenophon related with it (IV, III, 4): “… They were hired fighters of Oronto and Artukh ‐ Armenians, mards 93 and khaldeys94. It was said about khaldeys that they were courageous and independent people”. («…То были наемные войска Оронта и Артуха ‐ армены, марды и of quartvel (Melikishvili G.A. Ancient eastern materials…, page 398‐ 399, 416) and hurri (I.M.Dyakonov, Past story…, page 17) origin. 92 Present Bokhtan river (south of the lake Van). See in details in connection with the way of Greeks: J.O.Tomson, History of Ancient geography, Translation from the English language, Moscow 1953, page 128‐129 (map) 93 One of the ancient people of Southern Azerbaijan. See in details about mards: R.Melikov, Ethnic picture of Azerbaijan, page 154‐160. 94 Kald (Khalitu) tribes lived in the south east of Black sea. They were considered of Georgian origin. See: Melikishvili G.A. Ancient eastern materials…, page 411.

64 and confabulation on great Armenia

халдеи. О халдеях говорили, будто это народ независимый и храбрый…»). The Greeks walked for 5 parsang (25‐30 km) in Armeniya “consisting of plains and flat hills” and arrived in a village. Xenophon writes that there was no village near the river because of the fight with Kardukhs. The village that they met was a village “consisting of a palace for satrap and having towers on their houses. Food was abundant there.” (IV:IV, 1‐ «…эллины построились и прошли по Армении не менее 5 парасангов, следуя все время по равнине и невысоким холмам; ведь вблизи реки не было деревень, из‐за войн с кардухами. Та деревня, в которую они пришли, оказалась обширной, в ней находился дворец сатрапа, и большая часть домов здесь была с башнями. Продовольствие имелось в изобилии»). The hired Greeks moved forward for 10 parsang (50‐60 km) from here, crossed Tigris in the source, i.e. at the beginning and leave behind a difficult way of 15 parsang distance (75‐90 km) through snowy and stormy mountainous area and reached to wonderful, but small Teleboy river. “There are a lot of villages near the river. This placed is called Armeniya. Its ruler was the friend of the king Tiribaz…” (IV:IV, 3‐4 ‐ «Около нее (т.е. реки Телебой‐Я.М.) много деревень. Эта местность называется Западной Арменией. Правителем ее был

65 REAL HISTORY

Тирибаз‐друг царя.»). It is obvious from this infor‐ mation of Xenophon that the area of Armeniya ruled by Oront was ended on the region located on the bank of Teleboy and the area of Western Armeniya ruled by other Persian satrap Tiribaz was begun. The famous in‐ vestigator of the ancient geography C.Tomson conside‐ red this river as the branch of the river Mush.95 Accor‐ ding to this consideration, Teleboy was the upper branch of Euphrates Garasu river96. But the distance (30 parsang = 150\180 km) that the Greeks pass from Kentrit river (Bokhtan) (boundary of state of Kardukhs and Armeniya according to Xenophon) to Teleboy river in the Western Armeniya corresponds to the place that J.Tomson shows. Thus, Armeniya of the Persian satrap Tiribaz included the area located to the north from the lake Van and this area was called as “”. Sometimes, there are wrong ideas about existence of the area unit “Eastern Armeniya” as the equivalent to “Western Armeniya” of Xenophon in the literature. By the way, there is no information about representation of Armenians in two satrapies during the authority of Ahamanis. The “Eastern Armeniya” notion is not also encountered in the works of ancient authors. However,

95 Tomson J.O, History of ancient…, page 130 96 Historians of Greece. Translated from ancient Greek and composed by T.Miller. Comment of M.Gasparov and T.Miller, Moscow, 1976, page 424. ‐ /in Russian language/.

66 and confabulation on great Armenia the Armenian supporting historians searching the analogous points between the information of ancient authors and the writings of Khorenli Moisey try to substantiate from theoretical point of view as if the Armenians had two satrapies in Ahamanis Empire during the period of I Dara (b.c. 522‐486) and from the point of administrative division they conform to the XIII and XVIII satrapies as stated by Herodotus.97 But, some researchers consider that the second satrapy of Armenians was established during the time of the I Xerox (b.c. 486‐465).98 Those claiming that Armenians were represented in two satrapies indicate that the two persons were in power at the same time in the territory named Armenia in the works of ancient authors as the major argument. As if one of them ruled the “Eastern Armenia” by being connected with the Mada aristocrats with relationship connections (the XVIII satrapy in Herodotus) and the other ruled the “Western Armenia”as the representative of the generation being relative to Ahamanis (the XIII satrapy in Herodotus). For example, it is considered that at the same time, Tiribaz represented the local power in “Western Armenia” and Oront in “Eastern Armenia”.99

97 Dyakonov I.M., history of Media…, page 354‐355 98 Dandamayev M.A., Lukonin V.G., Culture and economics…, page 111 99 Dyakonov I.M., history of Media…, page 354‐355. ‐ /in Russian language/.

67 REAL HISTORY

But, in reality, fact should be explained with the particulars of the satrapy governing system. Dara the I concluding from the rebellions of B.C. 522‐521 preferred change of government system of satrapies and building of military‐administrative principle for prevention of occurrence of separatist trends. According to the administrative‐financial reforms of b.c. 518, the satrap is responsible for socio‐economic rise of satrapy and protection of public order together with military deputy. In other words, after restriction of the authorities, the civil function of included adoption of court verdicts, general management of the household, timely collection of taxes, control on the fulfillment of obligations and activities of the local officers, even minting of silver and copper coins. The military issues of the satrapy were in the authority of the military deputy being intimate to the Ahamani , but not being under subordination of the satrap.100 The brother in law of Artaxerx the II, Oront was executing the function of military deputy while Tiribaz was the satrap of Armina and was under direct subordination of Ahamani Shah of . But, their joint management in Armina was very short term. In B.C. 388, Tiribaz and the brother in law of the Artaxerx the II Oront after certain period acted as full right

100 Dandamayev M.A., Lukonin V.G., Culture and economics…, page 112‐113

68 and confabulation on great Armenia satraps of Ioniya and Lidia by keeping the military authorities. According to the complaint of Oront, Artaxerx the II order to arrest Tiribaz.101 The above stated once more proves that the Armenians were represented in only one – the XIII satrapy under the name of Armina during the power of Ahamanis. That’s why, the expression “Western Armenia” used by Xenophon should be understood as the “west of Armenia” or “western part of Armenia”. According to the other information of Xenophon, Tiribaz made armistice offer to the heads of the Greek through the translator. The conditions of the armistice accepted by the Greek were as follows: the satrap will not make damage to the Greek and they will not burn the houses and will take the food they need only (IV:IV, 5‐6 ‐ «Он (Тирибаз‐Я.М.) сказал, что хотел бы заключить договор, обязуясь не причинять эллинам никакого вреда и требуя от эллинов не жечь дома и брать только необходимое для них продовольствие»). The Greek continuing their way from there by stepping ahead 75‐90 km under the control of Tiribaz accompanying them keeping about 2 km of distance arrived at the palace with the villages rich of food around and stayed the night there (IV:IV, 7‐14). Notwithstanding the armistice with Tiribaz, the Greek

101 Dandamayev M.A., Political history…, page 238, 242, 246. ‐ /in Russian language/.

69 REAL HISTORY not losing the vigilance received news that the bonfires were seen on the mountains nearby and sent reconnaissance team to check that. The scouts not encountering the bonfires in the indicated place took hostage a Persian “armed with arrow and bow, quiver and axe as Amazon”. It was clear by the information of the hostage that he was going after food from the camp of Tiribaz. The Persian soldier stated in response to the question of the Greek in respect to Tiribaz’s troop and against whom they gathered that the troop of Tiribaz consisted of his own forces, as well as hired khalibs and taokhs (ancient people living in the south‐east coast of Black sea) and he intended to attack to the Greek in the narrow passage where the only way passes from the mountain pass. The Greek approaching to the camp of Tiribaz by the guidance of the hostage obliged the forces of Tiribaz to run towards the mountain with the sudden attack and the next day they passed the dangerous mountain pass with rapid march when the enemy could not come to itself (IV:IV, 15‐22; V, 1). Here the information on the military forces of Tiribaz attracted the attention especially. As seen from here, the troop of satrap consisted of his “own forces” and hired fighters collected from neighboring people. The source did not indicate the ethnic origin of Tiribaz’s own forces. The information of Xenophon in respect to

70 and confabulation on great Armenia

Persian fighter that was taken as hostage provides grounds to consider these forces as Persian garrison. It is interesting that though the territory was named “Armenia”, except for the fact that we reminded above on the content of hired troops of Oront and Artohm and an episode to be reviewed below, Xenophon did not provide any information about the Armenians and living of Armenians and use of Armenian language in that territory. The Greek contacted with the local population in Persian language and this indicates that not Armenian language but Persian language was used in the territory named Armenia. The Greek not falling in the trap installed by Tiribaz passed Euphrates river after a while (near its source)102 and by stepping ahead in extremely difficult and snowy‐windy weather arrived at a village, and encountered the women and girls coming for water from the village to the well in the opposite side of the border. “They asked the Greek who were they. The translator said in Persian language that were coming from Tsar and going to satrap. Those coming for water said that satrap was not there, he was a ferseng (approximately 5‐6 km) away. Then the Greek crossed the border together with women for it was late and they

102 It is identified with present Murad‐su river. See: Tomson J.O., History of ancient…, page 130

71 REAL HISTORY went to the leader of the village.” (IV:V, 2‐10 ‐ «Те (т.е. женщины и девушки носившие воду ‐ Я.М.) спроси‐ ли эллинов, кто они такие. Переводчик ответил по‐ персидски, что они идут от царя к сатрапу. Женщи‐ ны сказали, что сатрапа здесь нет и что он находится на расстоянии примерно 1 парасанга. Так как было поздно, то эллины вместе с водоносцами прошли по ту сторону вала к комарху») The Greek staying there for some time were served by the Armenian children worn the clothes of barbar (IV:V, 33 ‐ «…а прислужи‐ вали им (т.е. эллинам ‐ Я.М.) армянские мальчики в варварских одеждах. Мальчикам словно глухоне‐ мым, они знаками давали понять, что им надлежит делать»). And they explained them what to do with signs as deaf and dumb persons. But, Christof and Xenophon leading the Greek hired person interrogated the leader of the village in Persian language. Then they asked them through the Persian language translator what country was it. He answered that it was Armenia. Then they asked him that for whom they grew the horses. He answered that that was tax sent to the Tsar.103

103 Strabo gives information that the Armenian satrap sent horses to the ruler of Iran (XI, XIV, 9). made from Strabo are given according “Strabo, Geography in 17 books. Translation, articles and comments of G.A.Stratakovskiy.Under general edition of professor S.L.Utchenko.Editor of the translation O.O.Kruger.Scientific publishing center “Ladomir”, Moscow, 1994”.

72 and confabulation on great Armenia

Then he said that the nearest country was the country of khalibs and described the way to there.” (IV: V, 34 ‐ «После взаимных приветствий Хирисоф и Ксено‐ фонт сообща, через говорившего по‐персидски пе‐ реводчика, стали расспрашивать комарха, что эта за страна. Он сказал, что это Армения. Затем они спро‐ сили, для кого выращиваются кони. Комарх ответил, что это дань царью. Соседняя страна, по его словам, ‐ это страна халибов, и он описал ведущую туда дорогу»). The Greek continuing their way to the north by the guidance of the leader of the village after a week (the guide left his son in hostage and ran away for rough behavior of one of the Greek commanders after 3 days) went to the east for some time along the river The Araz104 in the upper part (beginning) of The Araz that named by Xenophon as Fasis, but they corrected their error soon and turned to the north west again. The Greek passing through the countries of taokhs (the northern source region of Euphrates) and khalibs (the valley of Chrokh river according to Ksenofont), skinfens, 105 macrons and kolkhs at last arrived at

104 Tomson J.O., History of the ancient…, page 130 105 Skifens are considered the generations of skifs migrated to Asia minor in VIII century. They lived to the south from Trapezun. See: Historians of Greece, page 424.

73 REAL HISTORY

Trapezun (modern Trabzon) and continued their way towards to the motherland. As seen from here, the borders of Armenia included in the XIII satrapy of Ahamanis described by Xenophon lied from Kentrit (Bokhtan) river being the branch of Tigris to the upper flows of Euphrates and the Araz rivers from south to the north. Ksenofont did not provide any information on western and eastern borders of Armenia. But, as stated above, Armenia was the border with the territory of the XVIII satrapy in the east where the matiens, alaroids and saspirs lived. But, in the west the territory of this satrapy reached to upper parts of Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Armenian historians’ claiming that “the borders of Armenia conformed to the borders of ancient Urartu state” in that period and extending106 the borders of the satrapy to the north (Chavakheti region of Georgia) and east (the lands of Azerbaijan from Urmiya lake to the middle flows of The Araz and Kura rivers) is not based any historical fact and is the product of ill imagination. Xenophon did not mention any city, castle or temple in Armenia. According to the Armenian historians, the Greek military troop passed away such cities for avoidance of unnecessary skirmish and they

106 History of the people of Armenia…, page 32

74 and confabulation on great Armenia went through the unprotected villages and they did not attract the special attention of Ksenofont.107 But, this is wrong idea from the very root and simple approach to the information of source. There is no information in the source on availability of any important city or castle in Armenia during the stated period and perhaps such cities were not available. On the other hand, the information of Xenophon did not contain any facts that might confirm that “the Greek laid their ways from the unprotected villages for avoidance of unnecessary skirmish”. In contrary, the Greek learning that satrap Tiribaz was nearby and intended to fight them in the narrow mountain pass seized his camp with sudden attack (IV:IV, 19‐22; V, 1‐2). The Greek hired persons preferred to fight actively with the enemy following them in other episodes, they did not evade from skirmish (IV:V, 19‐18). Thus, the city life was strange for Armenia of Xenophon period. In the villages of western Armenia “the houses consisted of well‐like entrances and mud‐huts being wide beneath” the passages were dug for cattle, but the people landed there through ladders. The sheep, goats, cows, birds and their cubs were kept in the houses. All animals were fed with dry grass in the houses. There were grain, or barley, vegetable or barley vine in clay jugs there” (IV:V, 25‐26: «Дома там

107 Again there

75 REAL HISTORY

были подземные, с проемами вроде колодца, но внизу просторные. Для скота были прорыты проходы, а люди спускались по лестницам. В домах были овцы, козы, коровы, птица и весь их молодняк. Весь скот вскармли‐ вали в домах сеном. Была там и пщеница, и ячмень, и овощи, и ячменное вино в глиняных кувшинах... »). The sources did not have any valid information on the next period of Armenia included in the XIII satrapy. There are not almost any proofs confirming the availability of independent Armania after collapse of Ahamani kingdom. In historical literature and especially in the works of Armenian and Armenian supporting historians mixed views not supporting serious sources were set forth.108

108 History of the ancient world, Book 2, Blossoming of ancient societies…, page 387

76 and confabulation on great Armenia

The geographical notion of “Armenian plateau” as the “Great Armenia” (Armyanskoye Nagornoye) was

concocted afterwards

As seen from here, Xenophon passing the territory of historic “Armina” named as Armenia by being falsified afterwards from the south to the north did not mention this mountainous country as “Armenian plateau” («Armyanskoye naqorye») in its work “Anabasis”. And the geographical notion of “Armenian plateau” («Armyanskoye naqorye») was not encountered in other initial sources and as well as Roman‐Greek sources. But, Armenian and Armenian supporting historians are not satisfied by only substantiating their land claims on account of the territories of notion of “Great Armenia” overstated on the paper. Those falsifying the history included another falsified term – “Armenian plateau” («Armyanskoye naqorye») geographical notion in the scientific turnover at the end of the XIX century. So called researchers and mainly the geographers began to inject in the brains that larger areas, even mountains of Eastern Anadolu belonged to Armenians in ancient times.109

109 See about the utilization history of the expression “Armyanskoe naqorye” (Armenian plateau): Asadov S, myth about “Great Armenia”…, page 70‐74.

77 REAL HISTORY

All generalized geographic terms applied by the ancient authors to the mountainous territory in the east of Anadolu continued to be used in scientific literature as well as scientific literature of Europe correctly. But, in the XIX century, the situation began to change. For example, M.Vagner visiting to the Agridag region in respect to geological study of results of earthquakes occurred in 1843 used the expression “Armenian Mountains” (Hochland Armenien in German language).110 In the work of K.Ritter translated into Russian language in 1874 either “Tavr range” («Tavrskaya sep») or “Armenian heights” («Vozvışennosti Armenii») expressions are used in parallel. 111 the fact that the landscape of Armenia was given in three form in the first volume of the work of H.Linch translated into Russian language in 1910 112 informs about the efforts made to connect the region in Russian language literature with the name of Armenian ethnos. The expression of “Armenian plateau” («Ar‐ myanskoye naqorye») in Russian language scientific

110 Wagner M, Reise nash dem Ararat en dem Hochland Armenian, Stuttqart, 1848 111 Ritter K, Land ownership, Part I, Iran. Saint Petersburg, 1874, page 14‐19. 112 Linch Kh.F.B., Armenia, Traveling essays and studies, Volume I, Russian provinces. Tbilisi, 1910, page 547: “armyanskoe naqorye” (Armenian plateau), page 555, “armyanskoe ploskoqorye” (Armenian upland) 558‐559, “plateau of ”.

78 and confabulation on great Armenia literature of the next periods obtains the “citizenship right”.113 In the XIX century the European geologists and geomorphologists spoke from the false theory based on oronyms (names of mountains) and other natural factors when setting the ethnic borders (but, it was not in their authority).114 Naming of the plateau in the east of Anadolu with the name of Armenian ethnos was substantiated with the fact that the researchers travelling these places in the XIX century did not pass by the influence of “Armenian issue” being in the center of attention of international diplomacy in that period.115 In reality, the Armenian issue was not the factor that will disturb the international public view and influence to the political appearance of the region neither in that period nor after that. But, the Russian empire and other great states used the “Armenian card” for prevention of Ottoman empire and mastering the straits in their foreign policy. In their turn, certainly the Armenian nationalists who created

113 Osvald F.F., About history of tectonic development of Armenian plateau. Tbilisi, 1915 ‐ /in Russian language/. 114 such kind of geographical expressions as “Iranian plateau”, “mountains of Kurdistan” were formed by this logic. 115 Khalatov V.Y. Natural and historico‐cultural boundaries of the regions of “Armenian platerau”\\New RAN, Geographic series, 2008, N 3, page 118 ‐ /in Russian language/.

79 REAL HISTORY an illusion of establishment of “Great Armenia” liked it. There is no doubt that the state factor exerted certain influence on the scientific researches of Armenians and historians, geographers and those supporting Armenians, as well as Russian and European authors being solidary with them. The hate psychology and the policy of “solidarity of Christians” in connection with Armenians having power against Ottoman Empire and Turkish people played a great role in some political circled of Russian and Europe. But what is the real history and the real name, the ancient name, of a geographical area, what the Armenian and pro‐Armenian ʺscholarsʺ of the nineteenth century began to call the ʺArmenian plateauʺ? The geographic area for the first time mentioned in written sources in BC Compiled in the nineteenth century, however, BC XXIII of the military and political events that took place at the end of the century, reflecting the ʺlegend Gutiʺ literary composition was recorded in ancient Babylon.116 In the legend during the

116 This composition composed in the different versions is the integral part of the series of works of art describing military disputes between Akkad state and the northern tribes. The literary and historical tradition of Mesopotamia presents guti and tribes located on the basis of the lake Urmiya of Azerbaijan as power played a decisive role in destruction of Akkad state and keeping the Sumer cities under slavery for more than half a century.

80 and confabulation on great Armenia reign of Naram‐Sue (2236‐2200 BC) ʺsilver mountainsʺ (in akkad KURMESKUMES: ideogramm phonetic reading is unknown) umman‐manda117 tribes occupied settlements in eastern (Burushanda, Buhlu, Buransu ), (Mesopotamia simah) and Qutium countries (areas south and west of Lake Urmia) presented a serious threat to the state of Akkad 118 . BC Cuneiform inscriptions of the twenty‐first century, the hilly terrain located to the west of Lake Van specified with the name Tabra (or Tibar) 119. In Ill Salmanas (859‐ 824 BC) and Sargon II (722‐705 BC) inscriptions this place is displayed as and are localized in modern Cappadocia (in Assyrian texts as Katpatuka) 120. Later, the ancient authors wrote this geographical term in the the form of ʺTavrʺ. One of those who applied for the first time this term, Strabo, not having accurate information about the mountainous terrain, sometimes writes that Tavr constitute ʺthe southern borders of Armeniyaʺ (XI, II, 15, XI, XIV, 1), and sometimes writes that the Midia and Armeniya are

117 Adali S.F. Umman‐manda and its Significanse in the Fisrt Millennium B C University of Sydney , 2009 ,pp.246,250 118 literally “ Manna Army “. According to the first millennium BC Queries of astrologer arising from high artistic style with this chronic term military forces of Urartians, Mannas , , Madals expressed fought against Ashur state. 119 Kifishin A. Geographical view p. 71 120 Arutunyan N.V. Toponymy of Urartu… p. 175

81 REAL HISTORY situated in the center of Tavrʺ (XI, XII, 1). In other parts of the (i, i, 29), in contrast to the mountains of Tavr, he used the expression of the ʺArmeniya Mountainsʺ (ʺArmyanskiye qorı»ʺ). However, he places Sofena and ʺSmall Armeniyaʺ kingdoms not in the Tavr mountains, but in the place called ʺAntitavrʺ (ʺTavr back;ʺ) (XI, 12, 4).. In the work Plutarkh ʺLukullʺ (XXVII) the capital Tigranakerta is shown to be in the place, called Antitavr 121. By the way, the series of Tavr called Pariadr known as ʺSmall Armeniyaʺ placed in the geographic area of Kappadokia. As a geographical term, the name of ʺTavrʺ, given to a mountainous area in eastern Anatolia then forgotten, and only remembered in writtens in the the Works of historian and travelers, addressing to the writtens of ancient authors. After the First World War (1914‐1918) this geographical area and even the adjacent territories in the Russian‐language press, then gradually, in the scientific literature of Western Europe in the name of social and political consciousness began to inspire as ʺArmyanskoye naqoryeʺ(Armenischen Hochlandes, Armenian upland, Armenien plateau). Behind it, no doubt, nurtured arising from the political ambitions and evil intentions of the future against Turkey and the

121 Aliyev K. Ancient Greek and Latin… p. 124

82 and confabulation on great Armenia

Turkish people of the region by the the tsarist Russia and the Soviet military and political circles. ʺCapitalistʺ Armenians living in Anatolia inhabited in Turkey ideological fight is always on the agenda of the Soviet regime, ʺArmyanskoye naqoryeʺ carrying a geographical sense, estimated future political goals. Thus, the continuous circulation of ʺGreat Armeniaʺ propaganda, falsification of historical and geographical names interchangeably Armenians Armenian family name associated with the memory of these places since ancient times, more precisely, ʺpaved the way for the emergence of misconceptions about the Armenians. Thus, in the west, Erzincan to the east of Ardabil, north of the lake to the south from the north, extending from Trialeti and a wide geographical area which covers an area of approximately 400 km2 but one ethnic group, it is ancient history, ancient cultural roots of these places are not connected nor the formation of a ethnic group ‐ the historical injustices was laid on behalf of the Armenians. For centuries, the natives of this region, with a population living in this region and continues to live in the now, in the most ancient times to the places of historical and cultural values of ethnic groups and peoples, which is directly related to the so‐ called ʺArmyanskoye naqoryeʺ in the name of science, as well as summaries of history, in Geography unprecedented fraud.

83 REAL HISTORY

It should be noted that, in modern Turkey, in scientific circles, as well, the so‐called ʺArmenian plateauʺ (ʺArmyanskoye naqoryeʺ) is a word combination and its translations in European languages, one of the regionʹs history, ʺAnatoliaʺ < Ανατολιέ Greek ‐ ʺeastʺ, the term used prefer.

84 and confabulation on great Armenia

Ancient ARMINA population

Since the beginning, I would like to point out that there is not any information about ethnic composition of the population of province of Armina in any ancient source. To advance definite considerations about this problem is possible only after etymological analysis of the name of 3 persons have been remembered in the Bisutun inscription. ʺArminaʺ means the source was recorded in 4 different grammatical form; Three of them expresses a particular geographical area: 1)Armin‐nominative case 2)Armin‐ dative case 3)‐in the case of persons 4)Arminia‐the name of ethnicity 122 The fourth form of the development of the ethnic sense of the term is confirmed by Elam and Babylon variants. Thus, in these variants Arminuya = Urastu terms ‐ in elams ‐ ap, in babil ‐ aya (graphics‐a‐a) are accompanied by Affixes of belonging 123 . In ethnic concept the term of Arminija was used at display of an ethnic accessory of 3 persons.

122 Melikov R. Ancient Persian…, p. 215 123 These variants shall be given according to artifacts of King L.W. Thomson R.C. The sculptures and inscription of of the Rock of Behistun in Persia. London, 1907.

85 REAL HISTORY

1) In ancient Persia Dadarsis = elamic Datursis = babil Dadarsu (see Appendix: Figure 1, 2, 3). Dadarsis carrying the same name as the name of the commander of Darius I of Persian origin, based on the ʺbraveʺ, ʺboldʺ, of ancient , the meaning is explained. Able to bear the name of the Persian commanders Armina 124 seems to be a local name, the possibility can not be denied. Perhaps Armina warlord whose real name Tad‐Hurr‐Urartu origin Arse (ʺpretty youngʺ) and those who made it to the version of the Inscription Bisutun ʺDadarsisʺ took the form of a transcription of their own languages. 2) Ancient Persia Araha = elamic Harakka = babil Arahu. Q.Kapansyan connect this name with the god of Urartu Ara (or Arah). 125 I.M.Dyakanov believes it to be of biayani origin.126 It is interesting that ʺArahuʺ named persons (b.c VI‐IV centuries) have been registered in the documents of economy about the Ahamani time of the Babylonia, and their Babylon origin does not provoke doubt. 127 The name of the Akkadian (East Semitic, or Assyrian‐Babylonian) language based arhu word

124 Kapantsyan G. Historical and linguistic work p 212 , not 1; Melikov R. Ancient Persian inscriptions…, p. 242 125 Kpantsyan G. Historical and linguistic work p 212‐213 126 Dyakanov I. M. Background of the Armenian people p 235 not 16 127 Dandamaev M.A. Mesopotamia and Iran in BC VII‐IV social institutions and ideology St. Petersburg, 2009 p 340

86 and confabulation on great Armenia

ʺquickʺ, ʺimpatientʺ, ʺflexibleʺ can be explained as follows. 128 In this case, the head of the Babylonian rebellion Araha appear to be Hurr‐biayni originated seems doubtful. Another peoples representative is hard to win the support of Semitic origin of the inhabitants of Babylon, and the Babylonian throne as the heir could hardly be accepted by the general public. Presumably, Araxa was babil born in Urartu. In Babylonian documents at that time there was registered other Babylonian born in Urartu. For example, the first year of the reign of the Babylonian king (BC 555), one of the temple Eanna in Uruk‐uballit Nergalʹs running for governor, ʺUrastu residentʺ (LU U‐ ras‐ta‐aa) as shown.129 B. C 418 in the city of Nippur document related to Babylon (modern Iraq Niffar) urartu and recorded meliteya come across densely populated neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood of Akkad barakku iltammas‐headed. Murasu, which is engaged in business activities in relation to renting of commercial house dates to about 2670 grams of silver were paid according to the contract. These meliteyans was surely residents of Melitena region of Kappadoky, Past Urartu inhabitants.130

128 Lipin L.A. Akkadian (Babylonian‐Assyrian) language. Edition II Dictionary Leningrad 1957, p 42 ‐ /in Russian language/. 129 Dandamev M.A. Mesopotamia and Iran p 340‐341 130 Again there p 341‐342

87 REAL HISTORY

M.A.Dandamayev believe that the Urartus and meliteyans were strangers warriors served to government and in return for services were provided by the land; If needed thet put aside the economic activities and were involved in military operations. All this in spite of what the head of the mutineers of Babylon ʺArminas» Araxa ethnic identity remains controversial.131 3) On the ancient Persian Haldita = elamic Haltita. Babil form has been erased. The third column, lines 78‐79 Bisutun Inscription reads: ʺThe person by the name of Araha from Armina, the son of Haldita rebelled in Babylon.ʺ Haldita Biayni origin, the name is translated ʺgreat Haldiʺ meaning confirm that the origin of the Urartu. For example, it is known from the stone books of Persepol castle, during the Achaemenid period Iranian peopleʹs religious beliefs were not impose any compulsion to worship the gods of Elam, and in some cases the names of the victims gave uploaded. 132

131 Revolt of Arakhan started in Dubala (it means inscriptions city in ) city of Babylon . Probably with the support of their fellow countryman spread revolt to whole area of Babylon within a short period for being his birth place. Dubala is the ancient name of place owned by Sumerian (in Sumerian language) is a form translated to akkadian language. During the movement of freedom this city was a shelter and captured space of last Guti Czar Tirikan in BC 2109. Dyankonov I.M. The history of Medes p 114 132 Hallock R. Fortification Tablets Chicago 1969, No 353

88 and confabulation on great Armenia

So, it is not possible to express decisive opinion about ethnic belonging of the carrier of three nominal we have looked through. 7‐month‐long uprising that took place in a section of Urartu does not present it as «a nationwide movementʺ. 133 During this time, killing of a 5097 ʺarminaʺ and captive of a 2203 people says aus about local character of an uprising. The durability of the uprising is connected with that Darius I ignored it and had tendency to suppress more dangerous uprisings. Thus, analysis of the sources shows that, BC VIII centure began to form the local Kingdom with the impact of certain non‐ethno‐political processes without exact nature in the neighborhood of the kingdom of Assyria. Different times, the Assyrian, Urartu, Mada and the political influence of the Achaemenid Arme/ Armina on behalf of Armenians in the region for a short time, the rise was due to the influx of new residents and the current level of knowledge is insufficient to evidence to the contrary. Its eminence does not remain without attention of composers of a Torah and has been noted in this divine book in shape ʺAramʺ. Arme / Armina Khabur River basin tributary of the Euphrates, the former state Hurr (akkadic Haniqalbat /

133 Dandamev M. A. Mesopotamia and Iran p. 339 ‐ /in Russian language/.

89 REAL HISTORY

Haliqalbad) because of the territory of the ancient kingdom in egyptian (qubti) Name dinner Arme / Armina began to be applied to the center of the city. Arme / Arminan the capital of the Urartian once texts mentioned (Nihiria) Bisutun inscription registered. It is situated in the neighborhood of the northern tribes Aramaic Arme / Arminada majority of the population of the area populated by ethnic Armenians in the name of what they called the gave prevail. But here I.M.Dyakonovs not considered as a crucial factor to be considered as the origin of Achaemenid Aramaic chancellery officials 220‐year history of the was the sole official language of the office.134 During this time, parts of the different, Elam, qupti, thousands of Aramaic text have written. In any case, at the time of the Achaemenid ʺArminaʺ and ʺUrastuʺ (= Urartu) as synonymous terms of development remains unclear reasons.135 He has no doubt that the Arme / urme, / etc Armina, none of these options as a geographical term has nothing to do with the emergence of the Armenian people, on the

134 Dyakanov I.M. Background p. 234 135 The vast majority of economic and accounting documents (only the total number of tower Inscriptions of the capital Persopol more than 30000) has been drawn in Elam language. See; Dandamaev M A , Lukovin V G, Culture and Economy , p. 10

90 and confabulation on great Armenia contrary, modern ʺArmeniyaʺ name is derived from the geographical term. In other words, the Balkan peninsula, ethnic origin who moved Frigiya came into possession of this island. I.M.Dyakonov considers that Armenians in the north have extended to area Suhmu (or Suhnu) (near to a place of a confluence of river Murad‐su to Euphrates), therefore their Georgian neighbours named them under the name of this area.136 in one of books Salmanasar III place of this area is underlined in the neighbourhood with kingdom Alzi, in ethnic and political space huri‐ biyani.137 There is a probability that in result metateze (in a word) Georgians much more later have transformed moving of the next consonants топоним Suhme into the ethnic term ʺsomexiʺ (or somsxeti). G.Melikishvili considers inhabitants of area Suhme of an origin hurri.138 In Assyrian texts in letters awelu armeja, Urartu absence of such expressions as armineli, shows that in 7 century B.C. Armenians were not generated yet as ethnos. Therefore there is no basis to believe that

136 Dyakanov I.M. Hetty, Phrygia, armenian, p 361 again its Background of the Armenian people p. 234 137 Dyakanov I.M. Assyrian Babylonian sources № 28 138 Melikishvili G.A. ancient Oriental materials p. 89 ‐ /in Russian language/.

91 REAL HISTORY already during this period ancient inhabitants Anatolys (huri, hayasali, biyani and others) become armenians. In the Babylon texts the writing awelu urastaya unequivocally does not belong to ethnic Armenians, it was used for expression of inhabitants of country Biyani (=Urartu). It is interesting that one of tsars of Urartu bore a name ʺArameʺ. It, in 844 year B.C. has suffered defeat in fight with the Assyrian tsar III. 139 Thus, as well as the ancient term ʺArminaʺ, attributed to alien Armenians, an accessory of this historical territory ostensibly to Armenians has no basis.

139 Luckenbil D.D. Ancient Records … Vol I & 661; Dyakanov I M Assyrian Babylonian sources № 31

92 and confabulation on great Armenia

Never in the history

There was no state under the name

ʺGreat Armeniaʺ

How and when it has been invented Concept "Great Armenia"

When there were expressions ʺGreat Armeniaʺ and Small Armenia, what they meant and what territory concerned? The Armenian falsification and some historians, without being based on any sources, assert that the concept ʺGreat Armeniaʺ has appeared in the end of 3 centuries B.C. They want to prove that ostensibly the concept ʺGreat Armeniaʺ was used in two senses ‐ geographical and political; geographically this expression was ostensibly used about 220 years B.C. Falsifiers with the big pride declare 220 year B.C. birthday of ʺGreat Armeniaʺ because, this year Selevki governor Antioh III occupied the Ararat kingdom and has attached it with the basic area of Armenia ‐ with lake Van pool. The interesting logic! In 220 year B.C. the Selevki governor occupied ʺthe Armenian kingdomʺ, still grasps pool of lake Van and it is attributed as creation of ʺGreat Armeniaʺ.

93 REAL HISTORY

In other words, the territory of ʺArmeniaʺ is completely occupied and passes under the power Selevki and it is attributed by the Armenian falsifiers, as birthday of ʺGreat Armeniaʺ. By the way, falsifiers of history, for age increase in ʺGreat Armeniaʺ for 20 years, also increase the period of occupation of the Araratsky kingdom Selevki governor Antioh III for 20 years. Actually, with confidence it is possible to assert that Selevkijsky governor Antioh III occupied these lands not in 220 year B.C.! Letʹs pass to historic facts! It is known that, Selevki governor Antioh III has come to power in 223 year B.C. and first of all has suppressed dangerous revolts of satrap Mada (Midiya) Molon and his brother, satrap Parsa, Alexander, then has attacked Atropatenu for its help to revolt of Molona. War of Antioha with tsar Atropateny Artabazanom has ended with the world. 140 By the way we will note that, during Artabazana, and can be and earlier, the territory of Atropateny was stretched from the Girkansky sea () to a riverhead of Rioni (Fasis), that is covered Armenia and . As wrote Poliby ʺarea of Artabazan was near to the Mussel, separated from it only median mountains; their Part, above Fasida (Fasis) towered over

140 Azerbaijan History in Seven Chapter C 1 p 277‐278 ‐ /in Azerbaijan language/.

94 and confabulation on great Armenia reached the Girkan sea. In area there live the aggressive people at war in basic on the game and having everything that is necessary for war. This kingdom remained since Persians so that they were seen by Alexander.ʺ (V, 55: ‐ ʺthe country Artabazan which lies beside the Mussel, separating only intermediate mountains:ʺ V, 55: ‐ «…страна Артаба‐ зана, которая лежит подле Мидии, отделяясь от нее только промежуточными горами: некоторые части ее, что выше Фасида (река Фасис ‐ Я.М.), господ‐ ствуют над Понтом и область доходит до Гиркан‐ ского моря. В пределах ее живет народ воинствен‐ ный, преимущественно доставляющий конницу и вообще довлеющий себе во всем, что требуется для войны. Царство это сохранилось еще от времен персов, ибо при Александре его проглядели»)141 After suppression of revolt of Molona, Antioh III, for returning of the lands lost in Syria from Ptolemej, waged war in the south (219‐217 year B.C., 4 Syrian war). In 212‐205 years B.C. it has carried out the known east campaign.142 Only in 201 year B.C., that is after end of these successful campaigns, the Selevki tsar occupied

141 Aliev K. Ancient Greece and Latin..., p. 44. Look: also, history of Azerbaijan, in seven volumes. т.1, p. 277; Ancient history, II. Prosperity of ancient societies..., p. 388. 142 History of ancient Greece. Under the editorship of V.I.Kuzishchina. Moscow, 2000, p. 317; East History. I, p. 533‐534. ‐ /in Russian language/.

95 REAL HISTORY

Sofenu (a valley top Euphrates) and territory under the name ʺAraratsky kingdomʺ.143 In the book ʺHistory of the Armenian peopleʺ published in 1980 under редакторством M.G. Nersesjana occupation of Sofeny and the Armenian kingdom concerns the period after 201 years B.C. and it is underlined that, the Armenian states have turned to satrapies and submitted to the commanders who are serving Antiohu. To Armenia and Sofenu, accordingly governors Artaksi I (Artashes) and Zariadri (Zarex), To Small Armenia by Mitridat I have been appointed. 144 And now pay attention to one moment: In books about which it was told above, in other sources, known to us, after occupation of Antioha III, it is not told about occurrence of geographical concept ʺGreat Armenia ʺ. Even the Armenian historians in connection with these events do not use expression ʺGreat Armenia ʺ, only ʺSofenaʺ and ʺSmall Armeniaʺ use expression ʺArmeniaʺ. The Armenian historians try to connect history of creation of the national state with area of Sofena

143 Ancient history. II. Prosperity of ancient societies..., p. 387‐388. ‐ /in Russian language/. 144 History of the Armenian people..., p. 36: ʺthe Armenian states have been transformed into satrapies and put under the beginning of the commanders who were on service Antioh. By governors (strategists) of Armenia and Sofena have been appointed, according to Artashes (Artaksi) and Zareh (Zariadr), ‐ representatives of the , in Small Armenia ‐ Mitridat, nephew of Antiohʺ.

96 and confabulation on great Armenia

(ancient Suhme/Suhnu), were in a river basin of the Murad‐sou which is inflow of Euphrates. But, the information of sources does not confirm communication of political structure Sofeny with the Armenian ethnos. From the numismatical samples found in a valley of the top Euphrates, it is known that in 30‐20 years of III century B.C. the independent policy the elite not Armenian, but the Persian origin (Arshama, Abdisar, Hshajarsha = Kserks) (see here tried to conduct: a Fig. 4: 1.2.3). But, as a result of strategic measures Selevki governor Antioh III have been broken the processes conducting to creation of the independent state in Sofene and only after death Selevki the governor (187 year B.C.), during reign of Zariadra have appeared possibilities for lifting. Despite it, neither from party Zariadra, nor from its predecessors it has not been noted the name of this structure on the monetary face values printed by them (fig. 4), that is does not prove to be true an accessory of this structure to the Armenian ethnos. The Armenian falsifiers have presented to the world invented by them ʺGreat Armeniaʺ not only in geographical understanding, but also as the state. Ostensibly, ʺGreat Armeniaʺ as the political concept is characteristic for II‐I centuries B.C., the periods of reign of Artashes I (Selevki governor Artaksi) and Tigrana II; during this period ʺGreat Armeniaʺ has reached the highest lifting.

97 REAL HISTORY

Before transition to the concrete facts, we will notice that is a full lie that the concept ʺGreat Armeniaʺ was characteristic for II‐I centuries B.C., that is 200 years. Because, with 223 to 187 years B.C. territory with the name Armenia was as a part of the Selevkidsky state and coped Selevki governor Antioh III. In 187 year B.C., after death of Antioh III this territory coped Selevki commanders of Artaksi (Artashes) and Zariadri (Zarex). According to the information of sources, Artaksi by origin was from the Midiya ‐ Atropateny. In 165 year B.C. after defeat of Artaksi (Artashes) from Selevki governor Antioh IV, the territory of ʺArmeniaʺ has passed again under govern of Selevki. As to Tigrana II, Parfian origins (95‐55 B.C.) in 66 year B.C. after defeat from the Roman commander Pompeja, it operated only a fatherly manor Armenia. Here these are real historic facts. Then why, the political concept ʺGreat Armeniaʺ concerns to II‐I to centuries B.C., that is for 200 years?! Falsification is available.

Selevki commanders of Artaksi (Аrtashes) A nd Zariadri (Зарех) were not Armenians.

And now we will consider historic facts of the period of Artaksi I (Аrtashes) and II Tigrana, that is the

98 and confabulation on great Armenia period when ʺGreat Armeniaʺ began to be used as political concept. The geographer ponty origins of Strabon (64/63 years B.C. ‐ 20 years of our era) so describes from Ahemenids till II century B.C.: the Period lasting since the period of the Persian sovereignty up to now, it is possible to characterise so. At first Armenia was grasped by Persians and Macedonians, and then those who operated Syria and the Mussel; 145 last governor of armeny was one of seven Persians ‐ Oront from a family of Gidarna. After that the commanders of Great Antioha battling to Romans, Artaksi and Zariadri, have divided the country among themselves on two parts. They operated the country, according to tasks of the tsar. After defeat of the tsar, they have come over to the side of Romans and declared by tsars, have received independence. (XI:XIV, 25: «Более новый рассказ о событиях со времен персидского владычества и следующих за ним вплоть до нашего времени, быть может, стоит изложить вкратце так. Сначала Арменией завладелы персы и македоняне; после этого те, кому были подвластны Сирия и Мидия; последным властителем Армении был Оронт, потомок Гидарна, один из семи персов. Затем Артаксий и Зариадрий, полководцы Антиоха

145 There is in a kind a Selevki dynasty.

99 REAL HISTORY

Великого, воевавшего с римлянами, разделили стра‐ ну на две части. Они правили страной по поручению царя. После того, как царь потерпел поражение, они перешли на сторону римлян, и провозглашенные царями, получили независимость…»). Newer story about events since persian sovereignties and following it up to our time, perhaps, costs will state in brief so. At first Armenia завладелы Persians and makedonian; after that those to whom were subject Syria and the Mussel; last Oront, descendant Gidarna, one of seven Persians was the master of Armenia. Then Artaksy and Zariadry, commanders of Antioha Great, at war with Romans, have divided country on two parts. They corrected the country on the instructions of the tsar. After the tsar has suffered defeat, they have come over to the side of Romans, and proclaimed tsars, have received independence... (XI:XIV, 25) Apparently, since time of Darija I, (522‐486 years B.C.) operated Armenia the Persian deputies, descendants of Gidarna. And Gidarn, on Gerodotu (III, 71), was one of 7 Persian nobilities who has organised attempt at Smerdisu (Gautama) During Kserksa it was the commander of guards immortal and has taken part in war against Spartans. After defeat from Romans of the Selevki tsar of Great Antioha in fight at Magnesia (Small asia) (190

100 and confabulation on great Armenia year B.C.) Selevki commanders of Artaksi and Zariadri also were the Persian origin, that is were not Armenians. Most known of them of Artaksi in late Armenian sources is exposed to falsification and is called as Artashes. In the books he of named as Artahshasi. 146 It is known that from Ahemenid tsars three carried analogous names ‐ Artakserks. Means, known to Greeks Selevki the commander unequivocally not was the Armenian. There is an opinion that it was midian. 147 Even Moisej Horensky writes that Artaksi/Artashes has come to power by means of Atropata and it directly names Midians.148

Created by Selevki commander Artaksi the state never was called "Great Armenia"

Letʹs notice that the majority of the Armenian and Proarmenian historians connect a term origin ʺGreat Armeniaʺ with the period of reign of Artaksi which was

146 Ancient history. Lifting of ancient societies..., p 389, the note 7. 147 History of Azerbaijan. In seven volumes. p. 1, Baku, 1998. p. 277. ‐ /in Azerbaijan language/. 148 A.G.Perihanjan. An Aramaic inscription from Zangezur// HIstorical‐philological magazine AN Arm. The Soviet Socialist Republic, №4, 1965, p. 108.

101 REAL HISTORY not the Armenian149, therefore on this theme we will stop in more details. At first we will pay attention to the information of Strabona (XI, XIV, 5):ʺ Speak that, the small country Armenia has extended as a result of wars which conducted Artaksi and Zariadri. They at first were commanders of Great Antioha, but after its defeat have turned to tsars (first Sofeny, Akiliseny, Odomantidy and some areas, and another was the tsar of the state surrounding with Artaksat) 150 they have together grasped close areas and have expanded the lands subject to them: At Midians 151 they took Kaspiana, Favnitidian and Basoropedan; at iberians mountains Pariadra, Horzena and Gogarena on that party of the Hen; at Halibov and from mosineks took Karenitidan: at kataon Akilisena and Anti‐Taurus; and at last from took Taronitidan. Therefore, now all these people talk in one language ʺ(ʺ... Tell that Armenia, in former) time were the small country, wars of Artaksi and Zariadri have increased. They were originally

149 S.T.Eremjan. Armenia on Ashharatsujtsu (the Armenian geography of VII century) Yerevan, 1963. (On арм. A language). p. 66‐ 70 Citation. ʺKonstantin Bagrjanorodnyj about management of empireʺ. Moscow, 1989, p. 413. примечание.13, from this product. 150 Around a confluence of Arpachaja of Araz, on the left inflow of Araza, on a place of Argishtihilini, a city of Urartu. 151 The Mussel ‐ Atropatena means.

102 and confabulation on great Armenia commanders of Antioha Great, and subsequently, after its defeats, became tsars (the first ‐ tsar Sofeny, Akiliseny, Odomantidy and some other areas, and last the tsar of the country round Ar‐taksaty); they have expanded in common the possession, having cut off a part of areas of surrounding nationalities, namely: at midians they have taken away Kaspianu, Favnitidu and Basoropedu; at iberians ‐ foothills Pariadra, Chorus‐ zenu and Gogarenu, which is on other party of the river Kira; at Khalib and mosineks ‐ Karenitidu and Kserksena who borders on Small Armenia or is its part; at kataons ‐ Akilisena and area round Anti‐Taurus; at last, at Syrians‐Taronitida. Therefore all these nationalities speak now in one language» («… Рассказывают, что Армению, в (прежние) времена бывшую маленькой страной, увеличили войны Артаксия и Зариадрия. Они были первоначально полководцами Антиоха Великого, а впоследствии, после его поражения, стали царями (первый – царем Софены, Акилисены, Одомантиды и некоторых других областей, а последний царем страны вокруг Артаксаты); они расширили совместно свои владения, отрезав часть областей окружающих народностей, а именно: у мидян они отняли Каспиану, Фавнитиду и Басоропеду; у иберов – предгорье Париадра, Хор‐ зену и Гогарену, которая находится на другой стороне реки Кира; у халибов и мосинеков – Каре‐

103 REAL HISTORY

нитиду и Ксерксену, которая граничит с Малой Ар‐ менией или является ее частью; у катаонов – Акили‐ сену и область вокруг Антитавра; наконец, у си‐ рийцев – Таронитиду. Поэтому все эти народ‐ ности теперь говорят на одном языке»). In this information of the Greek geography we will pay attention to the following: Strabo clearly marks that Armenia was the small country and its territory has been expanded only at the expense of gains of Artaksi and Zariadra, territories of the next people. It were those earths, which Armenian historians without the basis have included in structure of Great Armenia.152 for example, we will read in one of books of the Armenian authors: ʺall these earths were Armenian (occupied Artaksi and Zariadrom – Y.M.), and the population talked in the Armenian language. 153 after that this author forges the information of Strabona: I Artashes and its Orontid predecessors did not wage

152 With this logic, modern Turks should consider the big Turkic empires as the lands. Azerbaijanians Sefevi empire, Englishmen, Spaniards, Portugueses, Russian should return themselves territories of the empires. 153 Arutyunyan A.Z.Artashes I and creation of ancient Armenian professional army. The bulletin of ancient history, 2009. № 2. p. 131: ʺall these earths were Armenian, and the population spoke in the Armenian languageʺ.

104 and confabulation on great Armenia aggressive wars. 154 This proves that that, Armenianʺ historians continue to deform historic facts. From Strabona it is known, Artaksi and Zariadr (that is Artaksi Y.M) occupied three areas of the Midiya ‐ Atropateny, Kaspianu, Favnitidian and Basoropedan. From the occupied earths the place of Favnitidiana is not known only. Assir tsars, Tukulti I ‐ Ninurta and Tiglatpalasar I, eulogising in the stone books campaigns in headwaters of the Tiger, in the neighbourhood with a kingdom of Kadmuhi (or Kutmuhi) political formation Paphi (or Babanahi). Accurate location of the occupied territories Favnitidanın we consider important to share our viewpoints with readers. I Tukulti kings of Assyria, and I Tiqlatpalasarın‐Ninurtanın axarlarındakı areas of the upper Tigris marches inscriptions glorifying Kadmuhi (or Kutmuhi) Paphi neighboring kingdom (or Babanahi) shall be notified of the existence of a political union.155 Ven Menuanın king of Urartu inscriptions ʺMananiʺ(= Manna?) And Babanahi of the ʺburningʺ (?) Are talking about. 156 Babanahi country Urartu languages Hurr‐grandfatherʹs name (or papa)

154 Again there, p. 134: ʺArtashes I and its predecessors of Orontidy did not conduct wars of conquestʺ. 155 Dyakanov I.M. Assyrian Babylonian sources № 3,4,5,6,7 156 Melikishvili G.A. Urartian cuneiform inscriptions № 28

105 REAL HISTORY

ʺmountainʺ in the establishment of the doubt.157 native languages, the word of the relatives urartus, Hurries were added to the ends of the toponym‐h. Hurri, Urartu cuneiform writing system‐f‐and‐v‐fonemlərinin graphical expression of the impossibility Hurries literally ʺmountainʺ that the meaning of the word favand paphi, Urartus vəvənd wrote the word babanahi form.158 Ancient in the work of Strabo, the name of the place in accordance with the law written in the form of Oauvmba. 159 We can confidently say that the name of this ancient place‐name in the vicinity of the junction of the smear Tiger River was named in the Tel‐Favan location. It should be noted that the above‐mentioned information about the occupation of kaspiana later ʺSea stretching from the sea Armeniyaʺ became the source of their crazy ideas. Cut off from the land of Syria (Taronitida region) from the Mediterranean Sea to the east, as if Armeniya who have access to the historical

157 Melikishvili G.A. ancient oriental materials p. 50 158 Dyakanov I.M. Starostin S A Hurrito‐ Urartian and East Caucasian languages / Ancient east ethno‐cultural communication Moscow, 1988 p 172 Khacikyan M.L. Hurrit and Urartian languages p. 49 159 In “Favnitida” name ancient Greek language for toponym character indication of affiliation See; Kozarjevski A Ch Textbook of Ancient Greek language. Moscow, 1993 p 31, 165. This indicator is noted in another place. For example, Atlantis, Meotyda, Keravanitida, Appolontida, Tarontida, Karentida, Odmantida so on.

106 and confabulation on great Armenia reality is far from coastal areas to take control of the sources do not have any information about it. It is known that, in their march to the east of the kings of Armeniya Ekbatan destination city (modern Hama), respectively. I Qotarza Armeniya during military operations against the king Tigran II BC At the residence of the king of in 87 Ekbatan have surrounded the city and burned the castle Adrapana. 160 LW), however, has come to the shores of the Caspian Sea, which is a source of troops registered Tigran II. However, it can be assumed that I do not Caspiana Artaksi whole, the south‐western part of the province, in the north‐eastern region of the kingdom Armeniya Araksenanın (the source of the river adjacent areas) in the vicinity of the land, though time, reduce their political influence could. The names of actual occupation of the provinces able to accept as fact, even though there is no evidence proving the long it takes power Artaksinin on this land. According to Strabo another ʺAlbanians in the province is now included Kaspiana called with the name of the tribe disappearedʺ (XI: V, 5). Straboʹs ʺgeographyʺ Mada Kaspiananın case, but in other cases, such as Albania, Province of Submission regarded as controversial. BC Epifan the Seleucid king Antiochus IV in 165 (BC 175‐164), I Artaxsası victory

160 Sarkisyan G.Kh. Tigranakert Moscow 1960 p. 50 ‐ /in Russian language/.

107 REAL HISTORY over the occupied territories, including the breaking of the power of the central Kaspiananın Armeniya vouch for it.161 The political decline spent Atropatena can not go with the lost lands and Kaspiana made part of Albania. The most important thing is what Strabo, and other sources, in contrast to the claims of history falcificated, Artaksinin state ʺGreat Armeniyaʺ adlandırmırlar and how the naming of this state, also ʺGreat Armeniyaʺ There is no information at all about the use of a geographical name. Interestingly, the sources of that period, he created the name of the state, including Artaksi remembered their epitaphs. So in 1906, 1932 and 1977 in the territory of Western Azerbaijan, including Zangazur Artaxsasinin (or Artaksinin) in Aramaic (the Armenian language, no!) And 4 of the inscription has been found. Writing headlines Achaemenid inscriptions, there is a clear spirit. As a continuation of the tradition from its Title hokmdərı Əhəmənilərdən Artaxsasi does not name the countries, but only mentions his fatherʹs name and is a member of the house. Two inscriptions: ʹBR ZY ZRYTR RTHSSY MLK ‐ ʺArtahsasiy, Zariatrinin son of Czarʺ, and the other162ʹ MLK RTHSS

161 E. Bikerman, State of Seleucids , Moskow , 1985, p 156 ‐ /in Russian language/. 162 Dyakanov I.M. Starkova K B inscriptions of ataxia (Artashes 1) journal of ancient history , 1955 №2 p 162 In arami system when the

108 and confabulation on great Armenia

RWNDKN TV ʺBR ZRYTR ‐ʺ Artahsasi, Yervand descendants of goodwill, Zariatrinin son, ʺread the statements. 163 title last variant ʺ Yervand ʺ(or Eruand, Aravand) Name Straboʹs information ʺOrontʺ corresponds to the name. 164 Himself ʺYervand descendantsʺ of the Atraxsasi proximity and ultimately to declare illegal the government ‐ worked to show that the Achaemenid representative. OU on the fact of Armenian origin Artaxsasi and Zariadrinin proves that. Interestingly, all three names are explained on the basis of ancient Iranian languages. example, Artaxsasi ‐ ʺsacred truth (= Artanın) power Zariadri ‐ʺ Gold ʺ, Arvand

109 REAL HISTORY

Cadussy, became the satrap of Armenia. 166 Strabon correctly assert that to Selevki tsar Antioha Great the political power was in hands of representatives of the Ahemenid family. As it is known, in one of important sources ʺGreat Armeniaʺ or ʺArmeniaʺ is not called. Then, as was called the state created by Artaksi during its time. Probably, Selevki, as well as other states, had no official name. Anywhere it is not told about ʺGreat Armeniaʺ. It is clearly visible, as well as the term ʺSmall Armeniaʺ, ʺGreat Armeniaʺ as the place name has appeared from falsifiers of history, and having politized, has reached fantastic value.167 And now all these people tell that Strabon uses expression ‐ ʺin one languageʺ, this language was not Armenian, according to the Armenian historians. In sources of that time, there is no information that the Armenian language was colloquial. The fact does not prove to be true also that governors of Armenia spoke in the Armenian language.168 The historical reality is that during the Hellenism period in Armenia Aramaic and Greek languages169 were

166 again there, p. 249. 167 E.Bikerman. The state Selevkids..., p. 5‐9. 168 Poliby. General history. In 2т. т.2. Transfer from the ancient Greek. F.Mishchenko. М, 2004, XXV, 2. ‐ /in Russian language/. 169 Taking into account the alien is in the correlations strange incorrectly it had been drawn in Iranian and Armenian languages and

110 and confabulation on great Armenia used as the writing language and the certain inscriptions of rulers of Armenia who was not Armenian originally were brought to our period not in Armenian language but in Aramaic and Greek languages.170 Of course, Strabon while using the “one language” expression meant the official language Aramaic (or the Greek) language but not Armenian language. That’s why, the view expressed in scrawl of J.A.Arutyunyan “the ethnic content of the population was practically monolith and mainly consisted of Armenians” 171 is quietly out of reality and publicly falsified. It is clear from the sources that in the second half of the I century B.C. the state established by Artaxin became under subordination of Parthia. It was written such in the “history of Armenian people” we referred to above: “even in the middle of the III century B.C. the Parthia state was established in mountainous area of arami terms used as a ideogram the idea was put forward. See; Borisov A.Y. inscriptions of artaxia (Artashes) , char of Armenia // journal of ancient history, 1946 № 2 p 97‐104 Dyakanov I.M. Starkova K.B. İnscriptions of artaxia (Artashes) , char of Armenia p 171‐172 170 The name of Armenaina chars II Tigiran (BC 95‐55) and his son II Artavazd (BC 55‐34) on coin is in Greek language. (see picture 5) I Tiridat was a ruler of Armenia in 70‐80 years left after him text in Greek language (Borther of Parthia king Vologez I) history of armenain people p 58, It is known to science that the citizens of Tigranakert city has drawn inscriprtions in Greek language in BC IV (see; picture 6) 171 Arutunyan A.J. Artashes 1 p. 135 The ethnic composition of the population was almost monolithic and consisted mainly of Armenians.

111 REAL HISTORY

Iran”. In B.C. II century, it was living its period of progress. The Parthian beginning to fight the Selevkis had gained superiority in the Front Asia. The Tsar of Pathia Mitridat the Second (b.c. 123‐87) had reached the western borders of its state to the Euphrates river in North Mesopotamia. He had even conflicted with the Armenian Tsar the I Artavazd, and won the fight and took hostage Tigran the nephew of the Tsar (the future II Tigran). Soon the Parthian took the “Seventy valleys” province in the south east of Armenia as payment and returned back Tigran.172

Atropatene had never been oc cupied by Tigran the Second

The years of power of the II Tigran (b.c. 95‐55) are considered the most powerful period of Armenian kingdom. According to the information of Strabon, Tigran increasing its power not only took these

172 History of Armenian people p 40, Even in the Middle of BC III in the Iranian Plateau formed Parthian state. In II c it experienced a rise. Come to grips with Seleucids, Parthians achieved predominance in the Near East . Their char Mitridat II (BC 123‐87 ) brought the western border to Euphrates in northern Mespotomia. He also faced the Armenian king Artavazd and won the battle and took as hostage nephew of king Tigran, (further Tigran II) Soon Parthians omitted Tigiran , receiving as ransom region “seventy Valleys” located at southeast of Armenia.

112 and confabulation on great Armenia provinces from the Parthian (it means “Seventy valleys” given to the Parthia as payment), but also devastated their lands around Nin and Arbel. Then “he subordinated the Atropatene and Gordiena rulers and the remaining part of Mesopotamia by the help of them. He crossed the Euphrates and seized Syria and Phoenicia by force” (XI:XIV, 15). Strabon names the II Tigran the ruler of Armenian in real sense of word and notes that “this province is bordered with (it means Armenia – Y.M.) Midia (Atropatene), Albania and Iberia until Kolkhida and Kappadokia in Póntos Éuxenos” (XI: XIV, 15). Thus, it is clearly seen from the information of the geographer scientist that the occupied lands were not included in Armenia in real sense of word, otherwise Strabon would not pass by the fact he reminded a little prior and would not use the expression Armenia in the real sense of word. On the other hand, Strabon counting Midia (Atropatene), Albania and Kolkhida among the neighbors of Armenia certifies that these countries were not included in the content of fictitious “Great Armenia”. When speaking on the issue that Armenia was border with Albania, in historical literature sufficient valid proofs were set forth that the Albanian state was border with Armenia only from south‐west side (the

113 REAL HISTORY present South‐east Georgia)173 and we do not consider this issue as the subject of scientific argument. We have reminded the information of Strabon above on occupations of the II Tigran. How much are the writings of the Greek geographer about the “subordination” of Atropathene and inclusion of the lands of Atropathene in the content of “Great Armenia” by the Armenian historians and Armenian supporting authors based on these conforming to the historical reality? Lets look through the information in the text of Strabon in respect to Atropathene once more: “Then he subordinated the Atropatene and Gordiena rulers and the remaining part of Mesopotamia by the help of them.” («Далее, он (Тигран II ‐Я.M.) покорил властителей Атропатены и Гордиены и с их по‐ мощью остальную часть Месопотамии»). As seen from here, the matter was not connected with occupation or joining of the countries stated above into the content of any state, but it was connected with subordination of their rulers. And if Strabon’s information is true (we have not encountered this fact in other sources known to us), this event occurred after b.c. 87.174

173 Azerbaijan History in Seven Chapter I chapter p. 328‐329 ‐ /in Russian language/. 174 History of Armenian People p. 41

114 and confabulation on great Armenia

So, Strabon certifies that Atropathene was not in the content of Armenian kingdom but, it was subordinated by it for a short period of time temporarily and this provides no grounds that this may be indicated as the content o the mythic state named “Great Armenia”. In reality, the matter is connected with subordination of neighboring state, it means taking other country’s lands under subordination. On the other hand, there are sufficient initial sources that certify that the information of Strabon on subordination of Atropathene by the II Tigran or subordination of its ruler is false. For example, according to the writing of the Roman historian Dion Kassi (160‐ 235), the II Tigran had ties of relationship with Atropatis. The Atropatene Tsar Mitridat married to the daughter of Tigran.175 In respect thereof, Igrar Aliyev rightly notes that “this determined much in mutual relationships of two ruler and may be they were simply ally”. 176 We think that the fact that Tigran gave his daughter to the ruler of Atropatene should be given serious importance. So that, in all countries of ancient period, the dynasty relationship served to the state policy directed to strengthening of friendship relations between the countries, and accepted as the necessary

175 I. Aliyev Outline of the History Atropaten p. 82 ‐ /in Russian language/. 176 Azerbaijan History in Seven Chapter I chapter p. 285

115 REAL HISTORY act for creation of the alliance relations and protection of them.177 On the other hand, why Tigran had to occupy the country of the ruler of Atropatene Tigran the second, his son in law whom he gave his daughter? Let’s pay attention to another initial source. wrote that during encirclement of Tigranakert by (b.c. 69 year), Armenians and Gordiens collected with all forces for the assistance to Tigran, the Tsars of Media (Atropatene) leading his troops and Albena, Arabian troops from the coast of Babylon sea and Albans from the coast of Caspian Sea and Libers being neighbor to them came, also multi number free kins attracted with promises and gifts of Tigran from the coast of The Araz joined to them” («… Когда собрались к нему со всеми силами армяне и гордиенцы и явились во главе своих войск ми‐ дийские (атропатенские) и адиабенские цари, когда от Вавилонского моря прибыли полчища ара‐ бов, а от Каспийского – толпы албанов и сопредель‐ ных с ним иберов, да к ним еще присоединились, тоже в немалом числе, вольные племена с бере‐ гов Аракса, привлеченные лаской и подарками Тиграна»).178. Plutarch indicates this information quite

177 Interngovernmental relations and policy in ancient east, M. 1987, p. 65, 110 ‐ /in Russian language/. 178 Plutarch Selected biography Status an note M. Tomashevskiy M. 1987, Lukull, XXVI ‐ /in Russian language/.

116 and confabulation on great Armenia distinctly that the ruler of Media (Atropatene) leading his troops and multi number free kins attracted with promises and gifts of Tigran from the coast of The Araz came for assistance to Tigran, they were independent and did not depend on neither Armenia nor fictitious “Great Armenia, they were simply fulfilling their neighboring duties. By the way, K.V.Trever refuses the view of Y.A.Manandya claiming that as if the troops of Tigran consisted of vassal reign and kingdoms being under its subordination with valid arguments and indicates that ibers, Albans and as well as Atropatis were independent, and notes that only korduens and adiabens 179 were the vassal kingdoms being under subordination of Tigran.180 One of the notable points in information of Plutarch is availability of free kins (“not having Tsar”

179 Korduens and adiabens lived in the flow upper region of Tigers. 180 K.V. Trever Essays on the history and culture (BC IV –in VII century) Moscow‐Leningrad, 1959, p 90 It should be noted that hardly rights Manandyan Y.A. assuming that army of Tigiran composed from “subordinates vassals kingdom” because the word Harti was applied to the uber, Albans and Atropathens‐ independent nations “ vassal kingdom” “subordinate nations to Tigran” were only kordien and adeaban” In addition to that K. Trever In BC 70 Tigiran government expresses solidarity with Y. Manandyan from River Mediterranean Sea. See; Trever K.V. Essay on history p. 88.

117 REAL HISTORY and “not being subordinated by the power of tsar” in other translation variant) attracted with the gifts and promises from the bank of The Araz river among the people who came for assistance to Tigran. This interesting information of Greek author makes serious blows to the efforts of Armenian historians and their supporters to extend the borders of the state of the II Tigran to the east – to the Caspian sea including The Araz Azerbaijan lands. It is not accidental that the Armenians historians either pretend that they do not see this fact or exceed the last limit of falsification and take “The Araz from Azerbaijan territory” to other geographical region. For example, R.I. Manaseryan indicating that his predecessors (Y.A.Manandyan and others) did not pay attention to this fact and could not digest the availability of ethnos in the center of “Armenian plateau”, in the bank of The Araz or its upper parts or in Ararat valley in the political stronghold of the centralized state or in the lower flow of the river not being under subordination of Shah of Shahs and assisting him in exchange of gifts and they identified181 The Araz with Amu Darya river and claimed that the kins not being under subordination of anyone coming to assists to Tigran

181 One of the sacque community See; B.A. Litvinski ancient nomads p. 170‐172

118 and confabulation on great Armenia were Sakaruks. 182 But the Armenian historian sets forwards groundless discretions for proving his views. Firstly, that’s why Plutarch knew well what river he meant under the name of The Araz. Plutarch reminding the river Kur in respect to first fight of Pompeii with Albans (b.e. 66 year) wrote: The Kirn river (the name of Kur river in Plutarch – Y.M.) takes its beginning from the Iberia mountains, It receives the The Araz river flowing from Armenia (the expression flowing from Armenia refers to the upper stream of the river – Y.M.) and flows in the Caspian sea with 12 mouths. But, some people confirm that the Kura does not join with the Araz… it flows in the sea in the distance close to The Araz (Plutarch, Pompeii, XXXIV); ‐ «Река Кирн (Кура‐Я.М.) берет начало с Иберийских гор, принимает в себя Аракс, текущий из Армении, и затем впадает двенадцатью устьями в Каспийское море. Некоторые, однако утверждают, что Кирн не сливается с Араксом… хотя и очень близко от Аракса, впадает в то же море»). The expression of the author “some people confirm that” confirm him to be quite informed about the The Araz and excludes the error. Furthermore, it is clear from writings of R.I.Manaseryan that in b.c. 70s years sakaruks had

182 R.L. Malanaseryan International relation in the Near East vin BC 80‐70 years (Tigran II army from coast of Arax) // Journal of ancient history 1992, № 1 p. 152‐153 ‐ /in Russian language/.

119 REAL HISTORY played an important role in military political life of Parthia.183 It is nonsense to think that they assisted to the II Tigran in such a condition. On the other hand, such fact was not recorded in any historic source and it is contrary to military – political condition of the period. Of course, Plutarch meant the Turkish kins of the ancient Azerbaijan living in lower and middle regions of The Araz and distinguished with free life style. These kins were not under subordination of Tigran. The Atropatenes going to help to the II Tigran against Lucullus took very important battle position in the battle of 69 b.c. The Armenian Tsar took the command on the central part of troop in Tigranakert battle and entrusted the left wing to the Tsar of Adiabena, and the right wing where great part of armed horsemen were in front rows to the tsar of Midia (Atropatene). Plutarch, Lucullus XXVII: ‐ «Сам царь принял командование над средней частью войска, левое крыло доверил адиабенскому царю, а правое, в передних рядах которого находилось также большая часть броненосной конницы ‐ми‐ дийскому (атропатенскому‐Я.М. »). The Atropatenes being devoted to their alliance obligations were with the II Tigran in the battle around

183 Again there p. 158

120 and confabulation on great Armenia the Artaxata 184 city in autumn of 68 b.c. Plutarch (Lucullus, XXXI) wrote: “He (Lucullus‐Y.M.) made the first blow to the Atropatenes himself”. The best of them (the Atropatenes) stood face to face with him (Lucullus‐ Y.M). Lucullus had frightened them such that they ran away from the battle field until hand‐to‐hand combat. Three Tsars were participating against Lucullus in this battle (Armenian, Pont and Atropatene tsars) and the tsar of Pont the II Mitridat (the father in law of the II Tigran) ran away most ignominiously. («Сам он (Лукулл‐Я.М.) первым ударил на атропатенцев, чьи лучшие силы находились как раз против него, и сразу же нагнал на них такого страха, что они побежали прежде, чем дошло до рукопашной. Три царя участвовали в этой битве против Лукулла, и постыднее всех бежал, кажется, царь Митридат Понтийский…»).

184 When II Tigiran choose capital for his country he preferred Tigranekert city where he gave his name instead of ancient political center(Armavir, Ervandahat, Artashat, Valarshapat) . Nearly in BC 77 in the left coast of Euphrates in modern Farik place established new city. See; Sarkisyan G.Kh. Tigranakert p 51 But in fall of BC 69 During the march of the Romans construction of the city is not completed. II Tigran moved city to Artaxia (in Armenian source Artashat) for being destroyed. But in BC 66 Artakstat was surrounded by father and mother of the son‐in‐law of II Tigran III Fraat and then by the troops of Pompeii. Only after it agreement II Tigiran was forced to sign an agreement under these conditions with Pmpeii.

121 REAL HISTORY

Dion Kassi made a record of another collision between the Atropatenes Mitridat and the Roman (again as the ally of the II Tigran): “other Miridat, the son in law of the Tigran from Media (Atropatene) attacked suddenly to bear headed Romans and destroyed most of them”.185 It is clear from the information of the sources stated above that during the period of the II Tigran, Atropatene and Armenian kingdom had alliance relations. Nothing may be claimed that Atropatene was included in the content of Armenian kingdom and it was under subordination of it. On the other hand, the Mitridat from Atropatene understood well that if the Armenian kingdom is occupied by the Rome, the Romans will approach to the borders of Atropatene and his country will be in front danger. Such fact brought from Dion Kassi also gets clear that the Mitridat from Atropatene had sufficient military force for evading the attention of Romans from the II Tigran by attacking to Romans.186 Lucullus could not gain success in fighting against the II Tigran and its allies and he called back Asia and was replaced with Pompeii. It is clear from the

185 I. Nadjafova Mitridat Atropat ; touches to portrait// Actual problems of east . History and modernity . ANAS Institute of Oriental Studies named after Z.M. Bunyadov. 2001 p. 11 I. Nadjafova it guess that fight happened. In BC 67 186 Again there p. 12

122 and confabulation on great Armenia source that the II Tigran did not demonstrate opposition to Pompeii and surrendered to him (Plutarch, Lucullus, XXXIII) and in b.c. 66 , he was obliged to sign the peace agreement with Romans. According to the conditions of the agreement dictated by Pompeii: “The II Tigran was obliged to give indemnity in mass amount and lost all lands that it occupied and only became the Tsar of his fatherland Armenia”.187 By the way, during this march of Pompeii, unlike the Armenian kingdom, Atropatene had arranged to keep its independence. The ruler of Atropatene had sent his ambassadors to Pompeii for holding negotiations. Plutarkh (Pompei, XXXVI centruy), giving information about one of the fights of Pompei against Albanians, wrote: Upon this fight Pompei intended to continue up to the Caspian sea, but although he was in the distance of three days from the sea, he was forced to come back because of the poisonous reptiles. Then he retreated to the – Little Armenia. Being reply to the embassies of the tsars of the Elimeia and the Medes, Pompei sent them letters of friendship («После этой битвы Помпей намеревался пройти до Каспийского моря, но вынужден был повернуть назад из‐за мно‐ жества ядовитых пресмыкающихся, хотя находился от моря на расстоянии всего трех дней пути. Затем он отступил в Малую Армению. Царям элимеев и

187 I. Aliyev Outline of the History of Atrpathena p. 88

123 REAL HISTORY

мидийцев (атропатенцев) в ответ на их посольства Помпей отправил дружественные послания»). Thus, irrefutable historical truth was clear in the description of above mentioned sources: Azerbaijan state Athropathen having its ruler, independently of management system was not dependent on armenian kingdom, was independent and powerful state. With the exception of Strabone, neither of the first sources confirm the fact of Athropaten being under the dependent kingdom situation by Tigrane. Another fact was clear is that, the areas located at the noth of Araz river was not under government of Tigrane. It is known from the information of Plutarch, Dion kassi and Appia that, the allied armies of the albanina and iberians (no armenians!) relucted against Pompei at Caucasus who was following Mitridate, the tsar of Pont in the year of 66 before century.188 It seems that, one century ago from this event, successes of Artakhshasi gained in Zengezur were short‐term and political control of the Armenian tsars over these areas was rendered null.

188 Djavadov I.Sh. Fight of Caucasian Albans and ibers against Romanian in BC 66 // Journal ancient history m1973 № 1 p. 156 ‐159 ‐ /in Russian language/.

124 and confabulation on great Armenia

Which areas were concerned with Great Ar menia geographical conception by the ancient authors?

We touched to the issue of Great Armenia in connection with the reign of Artaxi above. We noted that, concept of Great Armenia was not used in any source as a political entity and this tsar of the Parthia (Median‐Atropatena) Artaxi did not call himself the tsar of the Velikaya Armenia in these historical inscriptions. This belongs to the reign of Tigrane. It is not accidental that , the state under the reign of Artaxi and II Tigrane was not called as Velikaya Armenia in the works of ancient world history and their supplements, the stae was simply called as armenian kingdom, in other word in the information about mentioned tsars the name of Velikaya Armenia was not came accross. 189 The historian R.L.Manaseryan called the new state as follows the new state of Tigrane, armenian kingdom of Tigrane, unity of Armenian and Syria kingdoms in his special article dedicated to the process of establishment of Tigraneʹs state,190 and never used the name of Velikaya Armenia and expresses

189 History of Ancient world p. 389‐394, 596 History of East East in ancient times. V.A. Yakobson M 2000, p. 535 ‐539 and “Hellenistic State “ map ; History of ancient rom V. I. Kuznishina M. 2000 p. 152‐153 190 R.L. Malanesryan Processs of creation of the army of Tigiran II // Journal of ancient history 1982 № 2 p. 122‐140

125 REAL HISTORY correctly. Beacuse of borders of geographical area called as Bolshaya Armenia, not as Velikaya Armenia, were much smaller than the areas invased by II Tigrane temporarly. We do not suppose that, the materials from these article gives ground to the confirmation drastically that, there was no state called as Velikaya Armenia in the history. But then, which areas was concenrned to the concept called as Bolshaya Armenia (not Velikaya Armenia!) and when and for what purpose this name was politizied? Strabone reminded the geographical name of Bolshaya Armenia in his work for 4 times, the name of Malaya Armenia for 9 times. The Greek geographer used Great Armenia and Little Armenia geographical names as their opposite. This case the translation of Bolshaya Armenia name as Velikaya Armenia is obviously falsified. Now let us to give attention to the writings of Strabone about Bolshaya Armenia: Euphrates River flows from the territory called as Great Armenia – to the Little Armenia, as well as the latter is located on its right on the beach, and Akilisena (it is mentioned from the work of Strabne that, this territory was taken away from cataons during the reign of Artahshasi // Artaxi – Y.M.) is located on the beach. Then the river turns to the south. (XI, XII:3 «…течет Евфрат на запад через так называемую Великую Армению до Малой Армении, причем пос‐

126 and confabulation on great Armenia

ледняя находится на правом его берегу, а Акилисена – на левом. Затем река делает поворот на юг…»). As can be seen that, Strabo locates the geographical areas both of Great Armeniya and Armeniya Minor on the area of upper flow of Euphrates. The boundaries of “Great Armeniya” are limited by the areas of upper flow of Pont and Euphrates in all cases in the other information of Strabo. (XII, III: 28‐29; XVI, I:9) There is no doubt that utilization of the expression “Great Armeniya” shall be explained by the new direction of political processes occurred on the area nearby the upper flow of the Euphrates, Tigris and the Araz. A suitable condition arose for activation of ruling circles of Armeniya because of non‐stable condition and political crisis occurred in the east of Anadolu after defeat (190 BC) of the ruler of Selekvki Antiokh the third to the romans in Magneziya battle and his death (187 BC). In the result of occupation of the warlords of Selevki Artaxi (Artakhshasi) and Zariadrin the boundaries of Armenia ruled by them were widened and got out from its previous vassal condition and became an independent kingdom. At that time other kingdoms (Elimaida, Persida, Kharakena, Parfiya and others) were established in the eastern satrapy of Selevkis. But as these newly established kingdoms were not “national states” having a unique ethnos, Armeniya was not the national state of Armenians, its

127 REAL HISTORY political elite was comprised of the aristocrats from Atropatene‐Azerbaijan. Strabo uses “Great Media” (not correctly in the translation “Grand Media”) and “Media Minor”, “Media of Atropat” as its equivalent, “Great Cappadocia” (not correctly in the translation “Grand Cappadocia”) and Upper Cappadocia, Pont Cappadocia as its equivalent, Great Phrygia (not correctly in the translation “Grand Phrygia”) and Phrygia Minor, Lower Phrygia as its equivalent and other notions in the meaning of geographical area. All above mentioned facts don’t substantiate presentation of the geographical notion “Great Armeniya” used as the equivalent to “Armeniya Minor” as “Armeniya major”. In the geographical meaning the expression “Great Armenia” was used in the period of Gay Plini Secund (23‐79). It is stated in his work called “Natural history” (Pliniy, VI, 42) that “Great Armenia” had the same boundaries with Sofena.191 For the last time this expression was used by Claudius Ptolemy (83‐168) among the antic authors.192 By the way, the readers who want to know the historical reality about the confabulation “Great Armenia”, but who cannot reach to the first sources can

191 “Sofena joins to Great Armeniya”, See: Aliyev K. Ancient Greek Latin …., page 217 ‐ /in Russian language/. 192 here again, page 224.

128 and confabulation on great Armenia appeal to the historical vocabularies. For example, it is stated in the article called “Armeniya” at page 50 of “Dictionary of Antiquity”M, composed by the German historians and translated into the Russian language that this name is a geographical notion and it is defined so: “a mountainous state lying at the upper flow of Euphrates and Tigris and to the east from here – to the bank of The Araz.” («После поражения Тиграна II от римлян в 66 г. до н.э. к западу от Евфрата было образовано княжество Малая Армения (Armenia minor). К востоку от Евфрата лежали области Великой Армении (Armeniya mayor), игравшие на протяжении многих веков своеобразного буфера между Парфией и Римом и попадавшие периоди‐ чески в зависимость от одной или другой из враж‐ дующих сторон»). It is stated there: “A princedom of Armeniya Minor was established to the west from Euphrates after defeat of Tigra the second to Rome in 66 before J.C. The provinces of Armeniya major which played a role of buffer between Parfia and Rome for many years and being dependent on them were located in the east from Euphrates”. Besides Tigris and Euphrates, upper flow of The Araz is considered too here and the area of Armeniya is localized at the upper flows of Tigris, Euphrates and The Araz rivers in the most of the maps (excluding the maps confabulated by Armenians). This is the confabulated history, to tell the truth real historical reality.

129 REAL HISTORY

CONCLUSION

The irrefutable factual material given in the first sources, real historical reality of Asia minor and Southern Caucasus proves thatthere was never a state called “Great Armenia” in the history. The myth called “Great Armenia” confabulated by Armenian falsifiers and the “historians” loving Armenians has no relation with science and it is completely contrary to the historical reality. The “Great Armenia” ideology is the product of ill imagination and it is a confabulation far from the historical reality. The first sources show that the ideas that Armenians were the most ancient ethnos of Asia minor (even the reproductions of )193 is ridiculous and an absurdity like as the myth “Great Armenia”. This is the historical reality thatthe ethnos supposed as the ancestors of ancestors of Armenians was migrated from Balkans to Asia Minor.

193 In the reality Aram that the Armenian falsifiers consider wrongly as their ancestors is recalled among the children of Sam – the son of Noah Elam, Ashshur, Arfaksad and Lud in part Creature of . See: Bible, Book of Saint Writing of Upper and New Covenant (canonical). Printed in Finland by Lansi Savo Oy. St. Michel Print Mikkeli, 1990, the Book of Genesis, X, 22.

130 and confabulation on great Armenia

The myth “Great Armenia” has given nothing than confabulation to the science up to the presenttime. It is a pity that great countries always used the confabulation “Great Armenia” skillfully in order to use Armenians as means for the purpose of realization of their political interests. Being encouraged by the promises given abroad and dreaming to establish “Great Armenia” follow this policy and implemented unseen vandalism ‐ massacres, deportations against Turkish moslem people of Azerbaijan, Eastern Anadolu and Southern Caucasus from the beginning of XIX century in order to occupy the lands of Turkey, Anadolu and Georgia. Though that Azerbaijan People’s Republic forgave the ancient city of Azerbaijan Irevan and lands surrounding it to Armenia on May 29, 1918 so that they could establish a state, the Armenian nationalists didn’t give up their vandalism. They continued massacres, deportations against Azerbaijanis. At night from February 25 to February 26 the Armenian terrorist separatists completely destroyed Khojali city of Azerbaijan thanks to the assistance of their supporters in front of the eyes of the world. Calm, unarmed people were killed as they were Azerbaijanis. Khojali massacre was included in the list of the massacres perpetrated against Turkish‐ moslem people by Armenians.

131 REAL HISTORY

Great countries use “Armenian card” in order to implement theirpolicy related to Southern Caucasus. In their turn though that they were deceived for many times, Armenians continue to follow this unpleasant policy. They forget that this policy will give nothing than disaster to the Armenian ethnos!

132 and confabulation on great Armenia

SOURCES AND LITERATURES

1. Qədim Azərbaycan tarixi mixiyazılı mənbə‐ lərdə. (Tərtib və tərcümə edəni, ön sözün və şərhlərin müəllifi S.Qaşqay). Bakı, 2006. 2. Алиев К. Древнегреческие и латинские первоисточники по истории древнего Азербай‐ джана (с примерами нового толкования). Баку, 2010. 3. Библия. Книга Священного Писания Вет‐ хого и Нового Завета (канонические). Printed in Finland by Länsi ‐Savo Oy/ St. Michel Print Mikkeli, 1990. 4. Геродот. История в девяти книгах. Пере‐ вод и примечания Г.А. Стратановского. Под общей редакцией С.Л.Утченко. Редактор перевода Н.А.Ме‐ щерский. Издательство «Наука» Ленинградское отделение. Ленинград, 1972. 5. Дьяконов И.М.Ассиро‐вавилонские источ‐ ники по истории Урарту // Вестник древней исто‐ рии, 1951, № 2. 6. С.Т.Еремян. Армения по «Ашхарацуйцу» (Армянской географии VII в.) Ереван, 1963. (на арм. яз.). 7. Константин Багрянородный об управле‐ нии империей. Москва, 1989. 8. Ксенофонт. Анабасис. (Перевод, статья и примечания М.И.Максимовой. Под редакцией ака‐ демика И.И.Толстого). Москва‐Ленинград, 1951.

133 REAL HISTORY

9. Латышев В.В. Известия древних писате‐ лей о Скифии и Кавказе. // Вестник древней исто‐ рии, 1947, № 4. 10. Меликишвили Г.А. Урартские клинооб‐ разные надписи. Москва, 1960. 11. Меликов Р. Древнеперсидские надписи. Баку, 2013. 12. Плутарх. Избранные жизнеописания. Сост. и прим. М.Томашевской. М., 1987. 13. Полибий. Всеобщая история. В 2 т. Т.2. Пер с древнегреч. Ф.Мищенко. М., 2004. 14. Страбон. География в 17 книгах. Перевод, статья и комментарии Г.А.Стратановского. Под об‐ щей редакцией проф. С.Л.Утченко. Редактор пере‐ вода проф. О.О.Крюгер. Научно‐издательский центр «Ладомир». Москва, 1994. 15. Gadd C., Legrain L., Smith S. Royal Inscriptions. Ur Excavations Texts. 1. London, 1928. 16. Grayson A.K. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods. Vol. 1. Assyrian Rulers of the third and second millennia BC (to 1115 BC), Toronto, 1986. 17. Grayson A.K. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian periods. Vol. 2. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. I (1114‐859 BC). Toronto‐Buffalo‐London, 1991.

134 and confabulation on great Armenia

18. Hallock R. Persepolis Fortification Tablets. Chicago, 1969. 19. King L.W., Thomson R.C. The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great of the rock of Behistun in Persia. London, 1907. 20. Luckenbill D.D. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. New York, 1968,Vol. I. 21. Luckenbill D.D. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. New York, 1968,Vol. II. 22. Azərbaycan tarixi. Yeddi cilddə. Birinci cild (ən qədimdən b.e. III əsri). Bakı, 1998. 23. Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyəti Ensiklope‐ diyası. 2 cilddə. I cild. Bakı, 2004. 24. Алиев И. О скифах и скифском царстве в Азербайджане. / Переднеазиатский сборник. III. Москва, 1979. 25. Алиев И. Очерк истории Атропатены. Баку, 1989. 26. Аракелян Б.Н. Латинские надписи из столицы древней Армении‐Арташата. // Вестник древней истории, 1971, № 4. 27. Арутюнян А.Ж. Арташес I и создание древнеармянской профессиональной армии. // Вестник древней истории, 2009, № 2. 28. Арутюнян Н.В. Топонимика Урарту. Ере‐ ван, 1985. 29. Асадов С. Миф о «Великой Армении». Баку, 1999.

135 REAL HISTORY

30. Э.Бикерман. Государство Селевкидов. Москва, 1985. 31. Борисов А.Я. Надписи Артаксия (Арта‐ шеса), царя Армении // Вестник древней истории, 1946, № 2. 32. Гарелли П. Замечание по топонимике из архивов Эблы. / Древняя Эбла. Москва, 1985. 33. М.А.Дандамаев. Политическая история Ахеменидской державы. Москва, 1985. 34. Дандамаев М.А. Месопотамия и Иран в VII‐IV вв. до н.э. Социальные институты и идеоло‐ гия. Санкт‐Петербург, 2009. 35. Дандамаев М.А., Луконин В.Г., Культура и экономика древнего Ирана. Москва, 1980. 36. Джавадов И.Ш. О сражении Кавказских албанцев и иберов против римлян в 66 году до н.э. // Вестник древней истории, 1973, № 1. 37. Джаукян Г.Б.Хаясский язык и его отноше‐ ние к индоевропейским языкам. Ереван, 1964. 38. Джаукян Г.Б. Очерки по истории допис‐ менного периода армянского языка. Ереван, 1967. 39. И.М.Дьяконов. История Мидии: от древ‐ нейших времен до IV века до н.э. Москва‐Ленин‐ град. 1956. 40. Дьяконов И.М. Общественный и госу‐ дарственный строй древнего Двуречья. Шумер. Москва 1959.

136 and confabulation on great Armenia

41. Дьяконов И.М. Хетты, фригийцы и армяне. Проблема армянского языка./ Переднеа‐ зиатский Сборник. Вопросы хеттологии и хуррито‐ логии. Москва, 1961. 42. Дьяконов И.М. Предыстория армянского народа. Москва, 1968. 43. Дьяконов И.М. Фригийский язык / Древ‐ ние языки Малой Азии. Москва, 1980. 44. Дьяконов И.М. Малая Азия и Армения около 600 г. до н. э. и северные походы вавилонских царей // Вестник древней истории. 1981, № 2. 45. Дьяконов И.М. К проистории армянского языка (о фактах, свидетельствах и логике). // Истори‐ ко‐филологический журнал. Ереван, 1983, № 4. 46. Дьяконов И.М. Значение Эблы для исто‐ рии и языкознания. / Древняя Эбла. Москва, 1985. 47. Дьяконов И.М. Урарту, Фригия, Лидия /История древнего мира. Кн. 2. Расцвет древних об‐ ществ. Москва, 1989. 48. Дьяконов И.М., Старкова К.Б. Надпись Артаксия (Арташеса I), царя Армении. // Вестник древней истории, 1955, № 2. 49. Дьяконов И.М., Старостин С.А. Хуррито‐ урартские и восточнокавказские языки / Древний восток. Этнокультурные связи. Москва, 1988. 50. Историки Греции. Пер. с древнегреч., сост. и предисл. Т.Миллер. Примеч. М.Гаспарова и Т.Миллера. Москва, 1976.

137 REAL HISTORY

51. История армянского народа с древнейших времен до наших дней. (Под ред. М.Г.Нерсисяна). Ереван, 1980. 52. История Востока. I. Восток в древности. Отв. ред. В.А.Якобсон. Москва, 2000. 53. История древнего Востока, Зарождение древнейших классовых обществ и первые очаги ра‐ бовладельческой цивилизации. Часть II, Москва, 1988. 54. История Древнего Востока. Тексты и документы. Москва, 2002. 55. История Древнего Востока. Под ред. В.И.Кузищина. Москва, 2000. 56. История древней Греции. Под ред. В.И.Кузищина. Москва, 2000. 57. История Древнего Мира. Расцвет древних обществ. Под ред. И.М.Дьяконова и др. Москва, 1989. 58. История древнего Рима. Под ред. В.И.Ку‐ зищина. Москва, 2000. 59. Капанцян Г. Историко‐лингвистические работы. К начальной истории армян. Древняя Ма‐ лая Азия. Ереван, 1956. 60. Кифишин А. Географические воззрения древних шумеров при патеси Гудеа (2162‐2137 гг. до н.э.). // Палестинский сборник. Выпуск 13(76). Москва, 1965. 61. Козаржевски А.Ч. Учебник древнегре‐ ческого языка. Москва, 1993.

138 and confabulation on great Armenia

62. Косян В.А. Лувийцы, фригийцы и мушки (к этнографической истории Малой Азии в VIII‐VII вв. до н.э.). / История и языки Древнего Востока: памяти И.М.Дьяконова. Санкт ‐ Петербург, 2002. 63. И.В.Куклина. Этногеография Скифии по античным источникам. Москва, 1985. 64. Линч Х.Ф.Б. Армения. Путевые очерки и этюды. Том I. Русские провинции. Тифлис, 1910. 65. Липин Л.А. Аккадский (вавилоно‐ ассирийский) язык. Выпуск II. Словарь. Ленинград, 1957. 66. Б.А.Литвинский. Древние кочевники «Крыши мира». Москва, 1972. 67. Манандян Я.А. О некоторых спорных проблемах истории и географии древней Армении. Ереван, 1956. 68. Р.Л.Манасерян. Процесс образования дер‐ жавы Тиграна II // Вестник древней истории. 1982, №2. 69. Р.Л.Манасерян. Международные отноше‐ ния на Переднем Востоке в 80‐70‐х годах до н.э. (Тигран II и войска с берегов Аракса) // Вестник древней истории, 1992, №1. 70. Межгосударственные отношения и дипломатия на древнем Востоке. М., 1987. 71. Меликишвили Г.А. Древневосточные ма‐ териалы по истории народов Закафказья (Наири‐ Урарту). Тбилиси, 1954.

139 REAL HISTORY

72. Меликишвили Г.А. Урартские клинооб‐ разные надписи. Москва, 1960. 73. Меликов Р. Этническая картина Азербай‐ джана в период ахеменидского владычества (VI‐IV вв. до н.э.). Баку, 2003. 74. И.И.Мещанинов. Аннотированный словарь урартского (биайнского) языка. Ленинград, 1978. 75. И.Наджафова. Митридат Атропатенский: штрихи к портрету // Şərqin aktual problemləri. Tarix və müasirlik. AMEA Z.M.Bünyadov adına Şərqşünaslıq İnstitutu. Bakı, 2001. 76. Освальд Ф.Ф. К истории тектонического развития Армянского нагорья. Тифлис, 1915. 77. А.Г.Периханян. Арамейская надпись из Зангезура // Историко‐филологический журнал АН Арм. ССР, №4, 1965. 78. Риттер К.Землеведение. Часть I. Иран. Санкт‐Петербург, 1874. 79. Саркисян Г.Х. Тигранакерт. Москва, 1960. 80. Словарь Античности. Москва, 1989. 81. В.В.Струве. Этюды по истории Северного Причерноморья, Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ленин‐ град, 1968. 82. Тирацян Г.А. Еще одна арамейская над‐ пись Арташеса I, царя Армении// Вестник древней истории, 1980, № 4.

140 and confabulation on great Armenia

83. Дж.О.Томсон. История древней геогра‐ фии. Москва, 1953. 84. К.В.Тревер. Очерки по истории и куль‐ туре Кавказской Албании (IV в. до н.э. ‐ VII в.н.э.). Москва‐Ленинград, 1959. 85. Халатов В.Ю. Природные и историко‐ культурные границы региона «Армянское нагорье» // Известия РАН. Серия географическая. 2008. 86. Хачикян М.Л. Хурритский и урартский языки. Ереван, 1985. 87. И.Н.Хлопин. Этногеография державы Ахеменидов по Геродоту. / Страны и народы Восто‐ ка. Вып. VIII. Москва, 1969. 88. Ю.Б.Юсифов. Киммеры, скифы и саки в древнем Азербайджане. / Кавказско–Ближневосточ‐ ный сборник. Тбилиси, 1988. 89. Adalı S.F. Umman‐manda and its Significanse in the First Millennium B.C.University of Sydney, 2009. 90. Börker‐Klähn J. Zur Herkunft der Bezeichnung Muški / Frige e Frigue. Rome, 1997. 91. Haas O. Armenier und Phryger // Linguistique Balcanique (Балканское езикознание III, 2. София, 1961. 92. Klengel H. Lullu (bum). // Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Siebtet Band. Berlin, 1987‐1990.

141 REAL HISTORY

93. Kretschmer P. Der nationale Name der Armenier Haikh.// Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Rom (philos.‐hist. klasse). 1932. 94. Labat R. Manuel d’épigraphie Akkadienne. (Signes, syllabaire, idéogrammes). Paris, 1952. 95. Potts D.T. Archaeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an ancient Iranian state. Cambridge, 1999. 96. Streck M.Das Gebiet der heutigen Landschaften Armenien, Kurdistan und Westpersien nach den babylonisch‐assyrischen Keilinschriften. // Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete. Dreizehnter band. Berlin, 1898. 97. Wagner M. Reise nash dem Ararat end dem Hochland Armenien. Stuttqart, 1848. 98. Winckler H. Die Reiche von Kilikien und Phrygien im Lichte der altoriеntalischen. // Altorientalische Forschungen, II, 2, Leipzig, 1898.

142

ADDITIONS

REAL HISTORY

Picture 1. Fragment from Bisutin inscription: Beginning of rebellion in Armina (The test is in the ancient Persian language).

144 and confabulation on great Armenia

Picture 2. Fragment from Bisutin inscription: Beginning of rebellion in Armina (The test is in the Elan language).

145 REAL HISTORY

Picture 3. Fragment from Bisutin inscription: Beginning of rebellion in Armina (The test is in Babylonian dialect of Akkad language).

146 and confabulation on great Armenia

1

2

3

4

Picture 4. Coins of Sofena kingdom. 1. Arshama 2. Abdisa 3.Xeros 4. Zariadr (end of III centure – beginning of II centure BC) It was shown at none of the coins that the rulers beaten on the coins were the “Armenian czar” or the ruler of “Great Armenia”.

147 REAL HISTORY

Picture 5.‐Kings of Armenia II Tigiran (BC 95‐55) and gold and silver coins of Artavazd II (BC 55‐34). It was not indicated in any coins examples of “Great Armenia” of II Tigran and II Artvazd was being as kings.

148 and confabulation on great Armenia

Picture 6. Inscriptions concerning the beginning of IV century BC engraved on the castle walls of Tigranakert city. (İnscriptions are not in Armenian language only Greek language)

149

YAGUB MAHMUDOV

REAL HISTORY AND CONFABULATION ON “GREAT ARMENIA”

2500 copy

TURKHAN Publishing and Printing Association