Unraveling the Distorted History of Armenia

The history of Armenia is often misrepresented and misunderstood. Here are some examples that highlight these distortions:

The Mystery of “Urartu”

The so-called “Urartu” is a peculiar case in historical narratives. According to current history, this state, with an unknown nation, suddenly emerged in the 9th century BC in the basin of Lake Van, exhibiting a high level of development. They were skilled in metal processing, bronze work, and producing high-quality steel. However, by the 6th century BC, they vanished as mysteriously as they appeared.

This enigma can be resolved by replacing the letter “a” in “Urartu” with “u,” resulting in “Ararta” or “Ararat.” This was, in fact, the Ararat state of the Armenian kingdom of Biaina, meaning “Double Armenian country,” uniting the “Armenian country of Nairi” and “Ararat Armenian country.” The misinterpretation of the language of Behayna as “Semitic” instead of Indo-European (Armenian) further distorted history.

Even the Armenian king Argist I (Argishti), who founded Yerevan in 782 BC, stated that he built the city in honor of Behayna by the order of the god Khaldi. The root “hay” in “Behayna” means “Armenian” in Armenian. Despite archaeological evidence showing continuity in artifacts and anthropological data indicating a consistent Armenian population, historians have ignored these facts, perpetuating the myth of “Urartu.”

Misinterpretations in Literature

British historian David Lang, in his book “Armenia, the Cradle of Civilization,” refers to “Urartu as the First Armenian State.” Similarly, in the “Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilization,” he discusses “Urartu and Armenia.” While these works represent progress, they still cling to the term “Urartu.”

The Case of the Translated Title

In 2004, E. F. Levina translated a book into Russian, changing its title to “Armenians, Creator of the Nation.” This seemingly minor alteration significantly altered the book’s meaning.

The Invention of the Aramaic Language

To obscure the antiquity of the Armenian language, the so-called Aramaic language was invented and classified as “Semitic.” This made it difficult to recognize and read ancient Armenian letters in their original language.

Distortions in “Ancient Civilizations”

The book “Ancient Civilizations,” edited by G. Bongard-Levin in 1989, presents Armenia as divided into three parts: the South Caucasus, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor. It absurdly claims that “Great Armenia” was created by King Antiochus III as part of the Seleucid state and that Tigran II the Great was a vassal of Rome. This is a deliberate distortion, as even Alexander the Great passed through Armenia with his army.

The Role of Armenian Historians

Armenian historians also bear some responsibility for these distortions, as they have not sufficiently challenged these injustices.

In conclusion, the history of Armenia has been subject to numerous distortions. It is crucial to recognize and correct these inaccuracies to honor the true heritage and legacy of the Armenian people.

Artatsolum

Based on an excerpt from the book “Armenians and Ancient Armenia” by Paris Herouni