Armen Aivazian

THE HISTORY OF ARMENIA

AS PRESENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

A CRITICAL SURVEY

Yerevan - 1998

The History of Armenia As Presented in American Historiography

I dedicate this work to the loving memory of my grandfather, Mkrtich Arshaki Aivazian of New Bayazed.

“Be in the know so you may predict”

Ogyust Kont (1798-1857)

2

Dear Reader

You have, at your disposal, a very rare work written by historian Armen Aivazian, which has been republished by Louys biweekly in Los Angeles by ‘Grkaser’ Publishing House in 2002.

The aim is to introduce to the wider Armenian audience the extreme importance of this book.

Chief Editor ‘LOUYS’ journal - S. Kiremidjian Publishing Editor - A. Djanibekyan Translated by A. Marcky By the request of Louysworld May 2002 December 2008 Los Angeles, California Sydney, Australia 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My gratitude to Academics Mkrtich Nersisyan, Lendroosh Khoorshoudyan, Doctor-Professor of

Historical Studies Babken Harutyunyan, Associate Professor Gevorg Ter-Vardanyan and Meroozhan Karapetyan and Associate Professor in Philology Sooren Sahakyan for their corrections and very

meaningful critique.

I have received no financial assistance for this work. It has been produced by my own

personal means.

4

PREFACE

In 1992, I was invited to the United States of America by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to participate in a two-week analysis program of the US elections. It was an extremely interesting event. In 1995, I was a recipient of an International Security studies grant provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, working in affiliation with the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. From September 1997 till June 1998 I worked as a visiting Senior Fulbright Scholar, affiliated with the Center for Russian and Eastern Studies at Stanford University, USA. I am extremely grateful to all the above institutions and individuals who gave me the opportunity to travel and work in the areas of international relations and conflictology and in leading American strategic centres. (These travels have not been in relation to Armenian Studies). During my travels I met some wonderful people who were all highly qualified specialists, each in their own field. I have numerous American friends, whom I love and respect dearly. Thus, this extremely critical survey does not bear any anti-American sentiment or motive whatsoever. This book has been written from a scientific point of view, with the intention of defending and establishing the truth. This study has led to the definitive conclusion, that Armenian Studies are endangered in America and internationally in general, the standards of which are of grave concern in Armenia and the future of Armenian studies. 14th September 1998 Yerevan. 5

1. INTRODUCTION

Armenian History as a Strategic Resource The quality of good governance of a nation is dependent upon the concept of social and economic wellbeing, which advances and unites a whole nation. The historical and spiritual inheritance of a nation is the imminent cornerstone in creating a healthy and united society. Hence, Armenian history is the irrevocable strategic resource of Armenia. This serves as a solid foundation upon which a stable government is built, the result of which is apparent in the four thousand year old Armenian civilization and its uniquely strong Armenian identity. When this is seen as a valuable source of exploitation and “extensive monetary gain”, then surely ones national and cultural identity is worth more than oil, gas, gold and other expendable mineral resources, the latter of which can only safeguard ones nation and its advancement for a fleeting moment in history, as opposed to the invaluable inheritance of ones national and cultural identity, which is, in essence, a source of unceasing and everlasting wealth. The majority of developing countries, including those with rich resources who do not have a rich cultural history, will often be threatened by dangerous social and political turmoil. We too, will face a similar fate if we do not resolve our problems and take ownership of our rich spiritual past with all its worth. If this fails, then our national security will be jeopardised. Subsequently, the scientific research of Armenia is of paramount importance. Results of this research should be served on to the international community through appropriate means, not just for academic purposes, but for the purpose of introducing the newly established Armenian government as well. The deep knowledge of our roots is essential for the unity of our nation and also an important factor in educating the younger generations in becoming good citizens. Honestly speaking, at present, there are known and unknown forces, who do not wish to see Armenia as a strong strategic force and having understood the great importance of Armenian history, have surpassed us, and have long since begun working on a politically motivated agenda of loot and destruction of our history, piece by piece. I am referring to programs that are well known in international scientific circles and who have, for decades, been engaged in the falsification of the origins of Armenian history. The Armenian nation is well aware of the works of these Turkish and Azerbaijani scholars who were subjected to a heavy backlash by Soviet Armenian scientists from the 1960’s to the 1980’s. These will be examined herewith, but we have yet to seriously evaluate the manipulation of Armenian history by the West, especially that which is taking place in Armenian Studies Centers in the United States of America. Taking into account the national security of Armenia (internal-civilian and external-international), the falsified version of Armenian historiography and Armenian studies in the West, is more dangerous and harmful, than the Turko-Azaerbaijani historical fallacies. This is aimed at Armenian interests on an international scale and this propaganda is an integral part of this aim. 6

Pro-Turkish Attitudes in Western Academic Circles

In Western intellectual and academic circles, pro-Turkish attitudes in the Near and Far East began forming at the beginning of the 19th century, when for the first time British and Russian monarchies began having intense conflicting interests in the Near and Far East. Initially, the foundation for pro-Turkish attitudes were laid by the Anglo-Russian conflict of interests, followed by USA/West – USSR/East, when the global political race lasted for a very long time, except for a break during WWI and a brief break during WWII. These breaks, however, were short lived and did not alter the mentality and the position of the pro-Turkish intellectuals and academicians, who were serving the West1

. But during the Cold War (1945-1990), pro-Turkish forces scored an important victory. This was a time when the global strategic race was becoming more intense between the two super powers the USSR and the USA and hostilities were taking place in every corner of the world between the members of the Warsaw Pact (Treaty) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). These hostilities were in essence being played out like a gaming theory, which had infiltrated the political arena. It was called a game of zero-sum, which meant that the gain of one party was the loss of the other and vice versa. In these circumstances, it is natural that, Turkey’s moral, physical and international integrity was being threatened by the historical and political aspirations and the call for the return of its lands by Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. Since Turkey was a member of NATO and Armenia an integral part of the USSR, this meant that the Communist bloc would become even more powerful and this conflict of interest was simply unacceptable by the West. This would be a blow to its political aspirations. This is what Christopher Walker, an exceptionally unique western historian, has written in this regard: “Prejudice against Armenians in Western academic, and even diplomatic circles was to some extent legitimised by the Cold War (when the attitude was to support Turkey whatever the cost); and despite the ending of the Cold War, a number of Western academics and ex-diplomats appear to remain quite ‘Brezhnevite’ in their incapacity or unwillingness to extend any understanding to the Armenian viewpoint, or to look seriously at its documentary basis. They continue to give almost uncritical support for the Turkish official version. As a result, much of what poses to be serious writing in academic journals about modern Armenian history is parti pris, selective and unreliable. It is Cold War, Nato history, which has an interest in cover-up and which does not seek to discover or explain the situation as it really was. Large amounts of important documentary evidence (especially German eyewitness dispatches of 1915) are simply overlooked by Ankara’s clients.”2 _____________________________________________________________________ 1.Christopher J. Walker, “Greenmantle’s Absent Armenians: A Study of Anglo-Ottoman Attitudes,” Armenian Review, Winter 1992, Vol. 45, #4/180, pp 2. Christopher J.Walker . ed., Armenia and Karabakh: The Struggle for Unity. Forward by Gerard Chaliand (London, Minority Rights Publications, 1991), P.3

7

This is a perfect evaluation of historical events, but having said that, there is a need to add the following:

1. Western global political hostilities towards Russia did not cease even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is true, that many distinguished American political analysts openly declared that, “The end of the cold war is also over,” and it is necessary to continue to reinforce and expand our position3. The expansion of NATO towards the East confirmed that this was the single most important aim of the West. During the second half of the 1990’s, due to the grim events that took place in global politics, Armenia, yet again, found herself in exactly the same camp as Russia, not having clear and distinct borders. But Turkey continued to remain an ally of the West, hoping to become a super power in the region (we have incidentally referred to these issues in another study).4 In addition to all these events, Azerbaijan is using every means towards becoming the link between the West and the Transcaucuses and the Middles East. As a result the dark and shadowy Western school of “Armenian Studies” that existed during the Cold War has had no reason to re-evaluate or change its position.

2. The Western school of “Armenian Studies” has not only raised its hand on

modern Armenian history, as thought by Walker, many others and ourselves, which we will illustrate herewith, but is also fallaciously manipulating ancient and medieval Armenian political and cultural history as a whole. This is a perfectly normal progression, because history, as a whole, is “organically” linked with the notion of cause and effect. It is scientifically impossible to study one period of history that is separated by time from the previous and following periods. It is impossible to isolate a historical event. Therefore, a “convincing” fallacy and distortion of history works within similar norms.

_____________________________________________________________________ 3.See eg. John J. Maresca, The End of the Cold War is Also Over (Stanford University :Center for International Security and Arms Control, April 1995), pp.1-23. Andrey Revunov, Strategia: Amerikantsi namerevayoutsia usilit cvoe vlianie na yuzhnikh rubezhakh Rossii” , Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozrenie (Moskva), No. 42, 6-12 noyabriya, 1998. 4. See Armen Aivazian, “Gharabaghi hakamartootyan kargavoroome yev Hayastani razmavarakan anvtanngutyune” menagrootyan mej. Yerevan “Hayastan”, “Hayinfo”, 1998:

8

Western “Armenian Historiography” evaluated as wrong and its reasons

What were the reasons that caused Armenian historiographers in Armenia to disrupt and in time put an end to the ever so increasing tendencies of the West in further distorting Armenian history? Let us mention a few:

a) There appeared to be no criticism of Western “Armenian studies,” hence an attitude of oversight and indifference started taking shape.

Armenian specialists in Russia and Europe founded Modern Armenian historiography at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. They included European historiography, linguistics and other social sciences in all their studies relating to Armenian history, as instructed by their teachers. These specialists referred to their teachers and European specialist of Eastern Studies in general, with often, exaggerated reverence. This lack of oversight and indifference was multiplied by, yet another problem, this being, the oversight of national values by some Armenians, whose roots were deep seeded in the circles of foreign governments. This attitude was then passed on to the following generations of Armenian historiographers. b) The school of Soviet Armenian historiography, which made great advances, especially during the 1940’s till the 1990’s, had a minimal number of specialists who were fluent in European languages. c) The isolation of Soviet sociologists and historians from the West and the western scientific world. d) The fear of being accused of nationalistic views, which the older generation had experienced in 1937. e) The majority of our experts (especially medieval specialists) who were familiar with European languages were, in general, ill-prepared in international politics and sociology. Historically, we have not paid much attention to the importance of politicising historiography and historical theory. In Soviet times, the notion of western freedom and liberty was extremely romanticised, with the exception of those western writers who were known in Armenian circles and openly showed interest towards Armenia (especially those who were literate in either written or spoken Armenian). They were glorified for almost all their works and publications, without attempting to delve into the depths of these famous works. One would think, not being ruled by a Soviet Communist Party, scientists living in western liberal societies, would not be interested in any gain other than true academia and be guided by honest and historically truthful opinions.

9

The truth is, the amount of finances that were being spent by the USSR on “propaganda and publicity” in the international arena, similar amounts or more were being spent and very effectively, on the propagandist war by the western supporters and allies of Turkey. f) Amongst those serving the West are a few writers who are Armenian by birth and who are deeply involved in misguiding and confusing Armenian intellectuals in Armenia, as it is difficult to believe, that they are knowingly and at times “subtly” doing deliberate disservice to Armenian historiography and the Armenian nation. e) Of late, western ‘historiography’ is fulfilling its set tasks not in the crude Turkish or Azerbaijani way, but in a more subtle, seemingly scientific manner, under the disguise of academia. This kind of fallacy is relatively difficult to recognise and therefore, extremely dangerous.

As well, it is important to note that the points mentioned above (or each point taken individually) was enough to put a historian in Armenia or any other specialist in a situation where, he would feel extremely embarrassed and confused to make any suggestion and would therefore, be caught up in this Gordian knot created by western “Armenian studies.”

Another important point worthy of mention is, that by speaking of the false Western school of Armenian Studies, we always have in mind the people in ruling academic circles or groups in the USA, who are in charge or have been in charge of established Armenian faculties and all the publications. Some of these are: Robert Thompson (at present the decan of the Faculty for Armenian studies named after Galoost Gulbenkian at Oxford University), who was previously the decan of the Faculty of Armenian studies at Harvard University between 1969-1992; Since 1965, Nina Garsoian has been in leading positions at Columbia University where she was the first decan of Gevorg Avetisian faculty of Armenian History and Sociology and was retired in 1993)5; Ronald Suny (who has for more than a decade been the head of Modern Armenian History at the faculty named after Alec Manoukian at Michigan University, and since 1995 Professor at the faculty of Sociology); James Russel (who replaced Thompson as director of the faculty of Armenian Studies); Peter Cowe (a guest lecturer at UCLA in Los Angeles, Narekatsi faculty); Levon Avdoyan (in charge of the Caucasian section of US Congress); George Bournootian (teacher at Iona College in New York and member of the Armenian Benevolent Union); Robert Hewsen (who is at present teaching at Rowan College in New Jersey and is engaged in Armenian historical geography and mapping)6 and other specialists working under their leadership. _____________________________________________________________________ 5 Nina Garsoian see details – From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina G. Garsoian (Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press, 1997), pp XIII-XV. 6 Short Biographical see R. Hewsen, Russian-Armenian Relations, 11700-1828 (Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Armenian Studies, 1984),p. (I), Preface.

10

Besides those mentioned above, there are scientists and experts in the west including the USA, whose works are truly scientific and are unlike works which are flawed, unscientific and are “written to order” for various reasons. Let us name a few: Louise Nalbandian (1974)7; American Sociologist Mary Kilbourne Mattossian8; Vahagn Tatrian (currently examining and working on his extensive program on genocide which has been funded by the Gugenheim Foundation); Levon Chorbajian (Professor of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts); Rouben Adalian (in the 1990’s lecturer of sociology at John Hopkins University in Washington and director of Ani Armenian Studies Institute); Ina Baghdiantz9 (at present decan of the newly established Jarakian faculty at Tufts University); David M. Lang (1990) and Christopher Walker (historians living in London) and others. However, some scientists and almost all the Armenians of the diaspora have put their faith in the representatives of the false-school of Western “Armenian Studies” and their publications, without being familiar with the sources of Medieval and Ancient Armenian History.

* * * This is not a full and comprehensive study of the issues raised in relation to American Armenian studies. Our aim is to examine and shed light on certain fundamental issues in American historiography. In the first part of this study we will examine a book published in 1993, where the author tries to, once in for all, “legitimise” the extreme fallacy and manipulation of “Armenian studies” in America of the last few decades. The book is appraised as “the first post-soviet Armenian historiography”10 and has been widely circulated in the United States of America. We will see how the facts manifested in the book, best describe the unscientific and highly politicised stance of “Armenian Studies” in America. In the second part, we will summarise the notable “achievements” of the American “Armenian Studies” in the past three decades and their intentions. _____________________________________________________________________ 7 The following work is worthy of mention: Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development of Armenian Political Parties Through the Nineteenth Century (Berkley University of California Press, 1963). 8 See Mary Kilbourne Matossian, The impact of Soviet Policies in Armenia (Leiden,Netherlands: E.J.Brill 1962).The translation and publication of this extremely valuable study into Armenian is undoubtedly of utmost importance. 9 We are acquainted with the Ph.D. dissertation of Ina Baghdiantz, The Armenian Merchants of New Julfa: Some Aspects of Their International Trade in the Late Seventeenth century. Ph. D. dissertation (Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, 1993). 10 Robert H. Hewsen, “Review of Ronald Grigor Suny’s Looking toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993, “American Historical Review October, 1994, p. 1357.

11

PART ONE

R.G. Suny’s ‘ Looking toward Ararat: Armenian Moder n History’ the most prominent book in American ‘Armenian studies’ or the false scientific school

of progressive advancement.

1. Introduction

In 1993, Ronald Grigor Suny’s book ‘Looking toward Ararat: Armenian Modern History’ was published by Bloomington: Indiana University Press, Pp. XI, 289. The author is well respected in American academic circles as well as the Armenian community in America. He is known as one of the leading specialists, specialising in national problems of countries of the former Soviet Union, also modern history of countries in the Transcaucasus. This is how, Norman Naimark, decan of Russian and East-European studies at Stanford University, praises his friend. “Suny is not only a highly specialised methodologist in Russian and post-Soviet history, but is also famous for his achievements in Georgian and Armenian historiography.”11

We will clarify this commendation later. But for now, some information on R.G..Suny. Since 1995, he has been a professor at the faculty of Sociology at the University of Chicago, which is one of the most famous universities in America. Prior to that, for over a decade, he was a professor at the faculty of Modern Armenian History - Alec Manoukian foundation at Michigan University. During these years Suny produced his most “prominent” book, known to be the greatest “achievement” in “Armenian Studies” in America. 2. Suny’s main aim In the preface of his book ‘Looking toward Ararat’, Suny mentions the main aim of his creation, that is to “decompose” hai,

“…for political nationalists, the basis for their political ideology, the continuous existence of the Armenians as a historic people, their origins in the Armenian

plateau, arms them with the right of self-determination, nationhood, and a historically sanctified claim to the territories that constitute Armenia.”12

According to Suny, this Armenian view is nothing but “the collection of beliefs”. Here is his next sentence (which, incidentally, shows that Suny, being fully aware of ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Ronald Grigor Suny, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Stanford University Press, 1993). P XII. 12 Suny, Looking toward Ararat, op.cit., pp.4-5.

12

his anti-Armenian stance and his chosen path, has rushed to stop his most likely critics by saying), “Because this view of Armenian history plays such an important political role for Armenians…, any attempt to dispute it, to decompose the collection of beliefs that make up this reading, must be done with care and sensitivity, with full awareness that such an investigation may be perceived as an attack on the very soul of the nation.”13

Although Suny’s aim in the above quote is sufficient enough to prove it unscientific, it is important to clarify the basis of his theory. Hence, thanking the author for his major prediction (or perhaps assignment), for being so very honest about his confession, let us examine his love of dualism.

3. Questions on Ancient and Medieval Armenian History The sources Suny refers to are often simply not mentioned and this is one of the inaccuracies of the methodology used in his book, which does not happen merely by chance. This is exactly how he has unscientifically “proven” the origins of the Armenians. “the Proto-Armenians migrated into eastern Anatolia, the Armenian Plateau, in the mid-sixth century BC.”14

There are two major fallacies in this short sentence.

1) Connecting eastern Anatolia to the Armenian Plateau is both historically and geographically wrong. Until the last few decades, the geographical border of Anatolia was synonymous with The Peninsula of Asia Minor. Since the 1920’s, first in Turkey, then in the West as well, Anatolia and the newly concocted eastern Anatolia was used purposefully, to define the whole area east of the Turkish Republic, including Eastern Armenia and Kurdistan. Even those who employ this kind of geographical misnomer of Anatolia, have not tried to connect it with the whole of the Armenian highlands, which also includes Eastern (Persia/Russia/Soviet/independent) Armenia. However, Suny includes Eastern Armenia into the territory of Anatolia. This is revealed in his following description of Karabakh. “A mountainous region at the easternmost edge of the great Armenian mountain-plateau stretching through eastern Anatolia.”16 Note that other American “Armenian specialists” have also started to include the Armenian highlands as a part of Anatolia. Speaking of ancient times, Nina Garsoian also includes the Armenian highlands into Anatolia by saying,

_____________________________________________________________________ 13 ibid, p. 5. 14 ibid, p. 7. 15 See, e.g. Armenian soviet encyclopaedia. No.1 (Yerevan, 1974), p 373. Comp. Encyclopedie de l’Islam. Nouvelle edition. Tome. I (Leyde-Paris: E.J. Brill, 1960), p. 475; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 2 (Chicago- London-Toronto, 1961). P. 536. 16 Suny, Looking toward Ararat, op. cit., p. 193.

13

( “ The political situation prevailing in Anatolia and particularly on the Armenian highlands…”).17 We will, however, pay close attention to Suny’s use of the Anatolian edge and the underlying deep nuances. But now, we will return to the question of the origins of Armenians.

2) Suny does not say where the Proto-Armenians “migrated” from, to the Armenian highlands. Hence, one can assume he is referring to the already old theory that the Proto-Armenians were the Phrygians who invaded and captured the historical Armenian territory in 6th century BC. However, it has been shown by Modern Armenian studies that ethnic Armenians existed and belonged to the Armenian highlands long before and during the Urartu government (9-6th century BC.)18 Solid evidence in this regard has been scientifically proven and documented in specialised English literature by prominent foreign specialists.19 Incidentally, Suny remains totally mute about the existence of this popular view, as well the major scientific research that shows the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans was the Armenian highlands and its surrounding regions.)20 Therefore, he either finds this research irrelevant or unworthy of mention (perhaps it would endanger the Turkish view that the Armenians are migrants), or is simply unaware of it. Speaking of the formation of the Armenian people, Suny makes the following declaration, “ Up to the reign of the great king Tigran (95-55 BC), Armenians were in the process of original social linguistic formation. The Proto-Armenians became an identifiable group with their own Iranian-style tribal structure and borrowed paganism.)21

_____________________________________________________________________

17 Richard Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern times, Vols.1-2, (New York St. Martin’s Press, 1997), p.37 18 See G.A. Kapantsyan, Khayasa – kolibyel armyan. Etnogenets armyan. Etnogenez armyan i ikh nachalnaya istoriya, Yerevan, 1947. G.B. Jahookyan, Hayots Patmootyun, nakhakristoneyakaan: Yerevan 1987: G.B. Jahookyan “Haykakan sherte urartakan ditsaranoom”, O soatnashenii khayaskogo i armyanskogo yazikov”, “Lezvakan nor tvyalner hayots nakhakristoneakan kroni yev havatalikneri masin”- Patma- banasirakan handes, 1985, No. 1, 1988, No. 1,2, 1992, No.1. B.N. Arakelyan, G.B. Jahookyan , G.K. Sargsyan, Urartu- Hayastan: Yerevan, GA, 1988: S. Hmayakyan, Vani tagavorootyan petakan krone: Yerevan 1990: 19 See eg. R.D.Wilkinson, Introduction to the history of Pre-Christian Armenia (Cambridge, Mass.: Society for Armenian Studies,1983), pp. 3-6, 72, notes 8 and 9; Edward Gulbekian, “Why did Herodus Think the Armenians Were Phrygian Colonists?” Armenian Review 44 (3-175) (Autum 1991), pp. 65-70. 20 See T.V. Gamkreleedze, V.V. Ivanov, Indoyevropyeskiy yazik i indoyevropitsi. Rekonstrooktsiy i istoriko- tipologicheskiy analiz pryazika i protokooltoori. Predisl. R.O.Yakobson, v 2-ukh tomakh. Tbilisi 1984. This work has many times been referred to in European languages as well as published in English: See also L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 264-265; Colin Renfrew, Archeology and Languages: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London: Jonathan Cape, 1987); Colin Renfrew, “The Origins of Indo-European Languages,” Sci. Am.261(4), pp.106-114 (1989). A.B. Dolgopolski, “ The Indo-European homeland and Lexical contacts of Proto-Indo-European with other languages,” Mediterr. Lang. Rev. (Harassowitz) 3:4-31. Merrit Ruhlen, The Origin of language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue (Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994), pp. 186-188. 21 Suny, Looking toward Ararat, op. cit., p.7

14 First of all, it is not clear how, according to Suny, Proto-Armenians having invaded Armenia only four hundred and fifty years earlier, in 1st century BC were able to form an Iranian-style tribal structure (unless, by saying this, he is suggesting a new nonsensical theory, that the Proto-Armenians came from Iran). Secondly, in the 1st century BC which were the tribes that had progressed from Proto-Armenians to Armenians? What were their names and when did the formation of this tribal structure come to an end? In reality, Modern Armenian studies is not aware of such tribes, but the structure of the Armenian people is known to have ended at least in 6-5th century BC. Our dear Professor has not answered yet another question. Did the “Proto-Armenians” he mentions, not have their own pagan elements (or perhaps they were atheists)? Or, as he says, they had simply borrowed the “Iranian and Greek gods” and accordingly founded their “national (sic! – A.A.)… pagan religion”, toward which they had shown surprisingly “devout dedication”.22 On the contrary, there is specialised literature on the Proto-Armenian and Armenian pagan religion.23 Finally, it would be very interesting, if Suny could really clarify what he means by saying that the Armenians became an “identifiable group” only in 1st century BC. Then who did they define as “hai”? Was it Hekateos Miletatsi (550 BC), the inscriptions of Behistun by King Darius (520 BC), or perhaps Herodotos Xenophon, (5th century BC). These are manifestations that Suny himself refers to.24

Not being fully satisfied, Suny, most irresponsibly, announces that the Armenians had formed “an identifiable ethnic-religious community” by the beginning of the 4th century AD.25 As a result, the English speaking audience, totally unaware of Armenian history, would, in this mixture of concoctions and misinformation, believe that the Armenian nation was formed between 1st century BC and 4th century AD, which is not based on true facts and is totally wrong. 4. Armenian Genetics Special attention should be paid to Suny’s intention of keeping Armenians as far away from their roots as possible. Straight after mentioning the existence of Proto-Armenians in the 6-5th century BC, he goes on to say, “Perhaps, there are genetic connections between this ancient people and some living today in Soviet Armenia,26 but having lived in a region of volatile East-West migrations, invasions and conquests, modern Armenians are more the product of ethnic intermingling, than they are the pure biologic heirs of Urartu.)27 ___________________________________________________________ 22 idid, p. 8 23 See eg.18: 24 ibid , p. 7 comp. RonaldGrigor Suny, The revenge of the Past: op. cit, p. 175, note 72. 25 Suny, Looking toward Ararat, op. cit., p. 8. 26 It is well known that in 1993 Soviet Armenia did not exist, therefore, our ‘Armenian specialist’ has refrained from editing his book, or his mind, in a proper manner. 27 ibid, p. 7.

15

Suddenly, mentioning Urartu right at the very end, Suny very humbly tries to allow himself some room to retreat, but the whole context of his work definitely creates the impression, that the Armenians have acquired this elemental gene much later. He almost goes on to say during the period of Soviet Armenia, because Suny describes migrations, invasions, conquests and exterminations, which have been carried out right up to the twenties of this century. In reality, the genetic homogeneity has been the basis of bringing the Armenian nation together and ensuring its continuity, which can be defined as the cornerstone of ones identity. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, “The Armenians have very distinct features and resemblance. They are tall, dark, their eyes are large and the nose long narrow and at times aquiline. Their heads are short which stretches up from the back of the neck so that the skull is cone shaped.28 This is the description by which an Armenian is easily recognised in far off foreign lands. Indeed, the Armenian kings during the first century BC had these features, which are shown on coins, especially Tigran the Great, Artavazd II, Tigran III.29 According to specialists, skulls that have been dated second and first centuries BC and which have been reconstructed by the most modern methods reveal extreme genetic likeness between ancient and modern generations of Armenian.30 According to specialists, “skulls unearthed in Noradooz, belonging to early iron age man, do not differ at all from the skulls of modern Armenians. They are bestowed with extremely protruded nasal bones the bridge or base of which is very high and has a strong skeletal profile.”31 Yet another multifaceted research has reached a similar conclusion. “The variation of the genetic code in Rhesus (d) ABO that has been discovered in Armenians living in mountainous Kharabakh, Armenia, Georigia and France and has been researched at different times has remained the same. It is evident that the PA and d genes in this population occurs at a higher frequency”.32 ___________________________________________________________________

28 Vol. (Chicago-London-Toronto, 1996), pp.380-381 29 For copies of photos see, Zareh Ptookyan. Artashesyan harstootyan dramnere: Vienna, 1969

M.A.Moosheghyan Hayastani dramakan ganzer, Yerevan 1973. 30 See Rooben Harutyounyan and Nvard Kochar, Inch en patmum mer genere, Yerevan, 1989, pp.55,

61-62. 31 ibid. p.55. 32 V.M. Nersisyan, P.Z.Delanyan, I.B. Danelyan, N.Y. Badoonts “Osobbennosti racpredelenuya

fenomen ee genov system AVO and rhesus Y nasileniya Nagornogo Karabakha”. (Genetics Russian Academy of Sciences) Tom 30, 2, 1994 February, p. 274.

16

This kind of homogeneity in human genetics has its historical explanation, which is as follows. Even though Armenians may have intermarried or assimilated with foreigners and often by force rather than by will, they have not assimilated with great numbers of ethnic groups to have caused a considerable amount of genetic change. The Armenians have lived an extremely long period of factual endogamy because of geographic, historic, social and religious reasons. This means that mixed Armenian marriages have always been at a minimal percentage levels (not taking into account the Armenians living in the diaspora, who have been exposed to naturally occurring cultural changes and assimilation). Let us mention three main reasons that have been favourable for Armenian endogamy.

1) Armenian ethnic homogeneity is a historic fact beginning from the last several centuries BC (note, Strabo’s famous proclamation regarding Armenia being monolingual during King Artashes I ),33 till 17th century AD. As well, during 17-18th centuries AD, the Armenians were a majority in the historic regions of Armenia.

2) From mid 13th Century AD, due to the lack of powerful strategic and political governance, Armenian assimilation was becoming apparent. At the same time it was impossible to assimilate others with ‘Armenians’.

3) It was practically impossible to marry Muslims, Catholics, Greeks, Georgians and Assyrians due to religious beliefs and for fear of being isolated from the community. We may note the following declaration in Armenian constitutional books ‘The law shall be laid for those seeking intermarriages’. Disobeying this law would have attracted severe punishment for the person deciding to intermarry and their parents as well.34

And so, the Armenians have continually preserved a high standard of genetic homogeneity with all its divisionary repercutions.35 It would not be an exaggeration to say, that today children born of Armenian parents are genetically much closer to the Armenians living during the last few centuries BC, than compared with those of present day French or Spanish (it is needless to talk of American, Australian, Brazilians and other younger nations) to their ancestors living in10th century AD. As mentioned, our conclusions have been confirmed by research and findings by anthropologists, genealogists, biologists, scientists and doctors.36 ___________________________________________________________________ 33 Strabo, Geography, Compiles and translated by F. Lasserre (Paris, 1975), book XI, Chapter 14, 5(Coll. G.Bude, vol. VIII, p. 123). The dealied analysis of Strabo’s proclamation see Gagik Sargsian, Identity and Self-awareness, The Rise of Mets Haik (Identitas), A, Yerevan, ‘Kamar’, 1995, p. 91-93. 34 Mkhitar Gosh, Geerk Datastani. Kanonagir Hayots H.A. Ashkhatasirootyamb Vazgen Hakobian, Yerevan Hratarak. 1964, p. 231: 35 Factual endogamy and its social outcomes see: U.B. Bromley, Ocherki teory etnosa. Moscva, 1983, cc 206-7. 36 For details and manuscript studies see: Rooben Harutyunyan and Nvard Kochar, same work., pp. 51-61, 75-86, 102-104, 132, 136-137.

17

Finally, let us note, that Suny’s wrong theory of Armenian genetics is most likely based on his source, a well known fraudulent Turkish writer Kyamuran Gyurun, who has expressed himself more clearly, “The ancient Armenians have nothing in common with the modern Armenian community”.37 Therefore, we can conclude that Suny’s and Gyurun’s perceptions of Armenian genetics are extremely distant from historical reality and existing specialist literature. _____________________________________________________________________ 37 See Manvel Zoolalyan, Falsification of Armenian History in Modern Turkish Historiography (ancient and medieval era)5 Yerevan, 1995, p.46. 18 to be continued…