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 Modern 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…