Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) is a cradle of ancient human culture, showcasing the greatest achievements of humanity: the development of tools for production, i.e., the beginnings of the creative human intellect and articulate speech, mastery of fire, and many other achievements of ancient humans. These achievements extend to the formation of material and spiritual cultures of tribes and peoples, particularly the Armenian people, who inhabited the territory of the Armenian Highlands.
The origins of ethnographic and anthropological studies of Artsakh were laid in the second half of the 19th century by the renowned Armenian ethnographer E. Lalayan, outlined in his work titled “Artsakh.”
The first information about the archaeological monuments in Artsakh was provided by the famous architect Veys fok Veisenhof (1884), and the first researcher of the archaeological monuments of Artsakh was Archimandrite Hachik Dadyan of the Gandzasar Monastery (1887-1888).
Significant work in Artsakh was also done by Emil Resler, a teacher at the Shushi Real School (1893-1898). Of the findings, the agate bead (2nd millennium BC) with Assyrian inscriptions, discovered in 1895, is of particular interest.
These materials served as the foundation for R. Virchow’s work “The Place of the Caucasus in the History of Civilization.”
Also worth mentioning is the brochure by I. Petrushevsky, which reflects some aspects of pre-Christian beliefs and cults observed among the population of the region. The population of Artsakh (as well as another northeastern province of historical Armenia – Utik) was Armenian from the time of the formation of the ancient Armenian ethnic group.
Anthropologically, the Armenians of Artsakh belong to the Armenoid type and, according to the opinion of the renowned Soviet anthropologist V.V. Bunak, represent one of the most clearly expressed groups within this type. (V.V. Bunak, Anthropological Composition of the Population of the Caucasus (Bulletin of the State Museum of Georgia, Vol. XIII A, 1946, p. 94)).
In the 1920s, ethnographic material was collected in Nagorno-Karabakh by St. Lisitsyan, whose work “Armenians of Artsakh” was only published in 1981. According to St. Lisitsyan, Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to those few historical-ethnographic regions where Armenians constitute the indigenous population, which has preserved its primary ethnic and ethnographic composition over the centuries.
In the 1960s, an ethnographic expedition (scientific director – D.S. Vardumyan) operated in several districts of NK2 from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR3, among others.
This report, compiled based on archival, historical, and literary sources, as well as materials from ethnographic and archaeological expeditions by European, Russian, Armenian, and Soviet scholars, aims to study the origin and formation of the Armenian ethnic group.
The choice of this topic aims to refresh in memory the truth that historical Artsakh is inherently Armenian land; moreover, an attempt has been made to create a comprehensive study on the anthropology of Artsakh, based on the research of scientists in the anthropology and ethnography of Armenia, where the focus was on specific aspects of Artsakh.
In our times, when the great struggle for self-determination and independence is unfolding before our eyes, the question of the future of “small” nations is once again raised, exemplified by the events of August 2008 in South Ossetia, which clearly heightened the general interest in Artsakh.
Getting acquainted with the historical and evolutionary development of the Armenians of Artsakh, in my opinion, has become directly necessary for anyone who wants to approach contemporary events in a responsible and conscientious manner, and not just in the Caucasus;
and also to eliminate the adulterations of political doctrine by the leaders of Az.R., and so-called pseudo-scholars—people with distorted concepts of morality and conscience—who, after the agreement with NKR on a temporary ceasefire, continue this war through informational means, publishing “works” that are called historical solely on the grounds that they distort every fact, safely bombarding NKR, RA, and the entire Armenian people with slander and lies after conventional bombings did not have the desired effect.
Furthermore, very little is being done in the public, political, and scientific spheres of Armenia and Artsakh to counter these false interpretations.
Anthropologically, Armenians represent a fairly distinct group, distinguishing themselves not only among the peoples of Asia, Russia, and Western Europe, but also partially among the more southern peoples of the Caucasus, Persia, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean coasts.
As is well known, the boundaries of races do not coincide with the boundaries of tribes and nations. Within the Armenian people, who speak the Armenian language and have adopted the common cultural traits of the nation, descendants of people not related to Armenians by origin can be included. On the other hand, it is known that at various times in the existence of the Armenian people, many of its representatives and even significant groups were separated from the native population, taken into captivity, resettled far from their homeland, forcibly or voluntarily adopted another religion, were culturally influenced by foreign neighbors, and adopted their language, etc., and as a result were lost to their native tribe.
Descendants of this portion of Armenians may now exist among the Christian and Muslim populations of Europe, Asia Minor, Syria, and the Caucasus as part of Syrians, Greeks, Lezgins, Persians, Turks, and other peoples, completely alien to Armenians in language, faith, history, and way of life.
Any detailed clarification of the type of a known tribe requires systematic observations and measurements over a sufficiently large number of individuals belonging to that tribe. Among foreigners, such research was conducted in the 19th century on Armenians by E. Chantre, who had the opportunity during her travels in the Caucasus in 1881 to measure 49 Armenians in Tbilisi and Yerevan, and during a subsequent expedition in 1890, 249 Armenians (at 14 different locations), including 39 women.
- Among Russian researchers, much anthropological data on Armenians were collected by Gen. Erkert, Dr. Pantyukhov, Dr. Blum, Dr. Virchow, and Dr. Tvoryanovich. Like Chantre, they collected data on various Caucasian peoples, including Armenians, and were particularly interested in head sizes (for which they measured several dozen individuals in each ethnicity). In addition, they considered variations in body height, chest circumference, hair and eye color, and facial dimensions. Pantyukhov collected his data during conscription and measured more than 2,300 Armenians.
- Comparing the results of all these studies, they came to the following characteristics of the Armenian type: Armenians are a people of medium height, in some places even above average. The head index of Armenians; the average size of the horizontal head circumference was found to be 547-549 mm, which is slightly smaller than that found for Ossetians, Kabardians, Svans, etc. (554-572 mm).
The shape of the head is short and broad, with moderate longitudinal and significant transverse diameters. As a result, the percentage ratio of the maximum head width to its maximum length, or the so-called cephalic index, is expressed in Armenians by a large figure (85%-86%), i.e., Armenians should be classified as brachycephalic and belong to the extreme brachycephalic.
The sharp brachycephaly of Armenians is not a result of artificial flattening of the occiput but is congenital and typical. Comparing the given characteristics with the traits of other populations of Asia Minor, Africa, Europe, and other countries, researchers noted that the Armenian type differs from the average type of other populations.
The Armenian type was generally quite widespread in Asia Minor and not only within the contiguous settlement of the Armenian tribe but also outside of it, among Syrians, Greeks, etc Prof. F. von Luschan, who conducted anthropological research in Asia Minor in the 19th century, noted that among Armenians, brachycephaly predominates.
Luschan measured 120 Armenians and had the opportunity to study 26 Armenian skulls; all were found to be broad-headed, with a horizontal circumference of 547 to 549 mm. Luschan considers the brachycephalic type to be the primary, most ancient type in Asia Minor, as it is represented in the bas-reliefs of the ancient Hittite cultural tribe. He identifies the Hittites with the Armenians, who constituted the oldest cultural population in Asia Minor.
A completely different opinion was expressed by Prof. Sergi. According to Sergi, the Armenoid race, the Armenians, populated Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Asia Minor, migrated to the islands and mainland of Greece, Sicily, Italy, and Sardinia, penetrated into modern Switzerland, France, England, Ireland, Spain, and also the Caucasus, Crimea, Southern Russia, and the Danube.
In the 21st century, ophthalmologist Ernst Muldashev reached the same conclusion. Using ophthalmogeometry, he began studying human races and conducted their ophthalmogeometric analysis. According to Prof. Muldashev’s data, in addition to pure Europeans (Dinaric, Nordic, and Alpine races), the Armenoid race also gave rise to the Mediterranean race.
This is also mentioned in the English chronicle, the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicles,” the oldest chronicle of England, covering the period from the Roman conquest (1st century BC) to the 12th century AD. It states, “The first inhabitants of the island of Britain were the Britons, who came from Armenia and first settled in the south of Britain” (Bede. Ecclesiastical History, Part 1. Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Part 1: 1 – 748 AD).
According to ancient traditions, the early Armenians were fair-skinned, red-haired, and blue-eyed, and one can still meet such Armenians today. The modern appearance of Armenians was formed as a result of mixing with other peoples (Medes, Tatars, etc.).
The Armenoid race laid the foundation for the ancient cultures of Egypt, Greece, and Etruria—cultures that preceded the spread of the Aryans, who later gained predominance. After mixing more or less with the local population and assimilating their culture, the Aryans imparted many of their own features. Sergi argues that the brachycephalic type is the true Aryan.
According to Sergi’s theory, Asia Minor (the Armenian Highlands – Armenia) is the homeland of the true Aryans. Prof. Luschan, on the other hand, believes that Armenians are descendants of the oldest indigenous race of Asia Minor, having maintained their type despite influences from Semites, Greeks, and others. Luschan thought that ancient Armenians and Hittites had much in common; both have the same brachycephalic element and represent the anthropological group – Armenians. Aryans spoke a language of the Eastern Indo-European family.
- The fact that the Armenian people were widespread in Asia Minor prior to the Armenian Genocide in Turkey (1878-1924) is confirmed by many observations. Dr. Weisbach encountered them in the modern population of ancient Vikinia, and R. Virchow found them among the Greeks of the northwestern corner of Asia Minor.
Excavations of ancient graves were carried out near the town of Renkoe, yielding a range of meso- and brachycephalic skulls. Virchow also measured skulls excavated by Schliemann from his digs at Hissarlik (site of ancient Troy) and found that even the oldest of them, from the second millennium BC, were characterized by brachycephaly, as were skulls excavated by an American archaeological expedition from the ruins of the ancient city of Assos.
Virchow also compared these skulls with Armenian ones, and Luschan’s theory received further development. Virchow called them not Armenoid, as Luschan did, but directly Armenian (Luschan, Virchow—materials from the report of the Congress of the German Anthropological Society, 1892).
Bertin, who specifically studied racial types on Assyrian and Babylonian monuments, believes he can distinguish among them an Armenian type, specifically in the depiction of two envoys before King Ashurbanipal in Elam (668-627 BC).
These two individuals are sharply different from the Assyrians in the features of their elongated faces, long curved noses, somewhat thick lips, short stature, and generally, characteristics of the Armenian type, which, according to Bertin, typify the Armenians.
- Deciphering the Van, i.e., Armenian cuneiform inscriptions, was seriously taken up by Sayce, who labeled them as Hittite. This work was then continued by Halevy, Grozny, Peiser, and Conder. In 1893-1894, Professor Jensen took up the task.
After the deciphering, Jensen concluded that the Van inscriptions were written in a dialect of ancient Armenian. This confirmed that Armenians are ancient natives of Asia Minor.
Due to its geographical location, the Armenian people were the dominant nation in Asia Minor for thousands of years before our era, and as the progenitors of the Aryan tribe, they sowed the seeds of civilization in Egypt and influenced the fate of Ionic Greece.
According to Jensen, the Armenian name ‘Khay’ is the same modified name of the Hittites; he noticed many roots of Armenian cuneiform ideograms strikingly similar to the Hittite ones.
Thus, as it turned out, Jensen’s discovery sheds enormous light on the entire history of the Armenian people and, in terms of its importance, can only be compared to Champollion’s discovery of how to read Egyptian writings.
Further processing, systematization, and analysis of the deciphered ideograms by Soviet scholars I. Diakonov, G. Melikishvili, and others in the 1960s showed a complete match of the phonetic and root correspondences discovered with those found in the study of the phonetic and root composition of the Urartian and Armenian languages. From this, it can be assumed that there was no separate Urartian language; the language of intertribal communication in the state of Urartu was the Armenian language – the language of the primary mass of carriers – the Armenians, the aborigines in the territory of Urartu, which has undergone more than a thousand years of development from the last cuneiform to the writing of Mesrop Mashtots.
- One of the most important moments, indicating the emergence of a nationality, was the appearance of a collective name for all related tribes that formed the basis of the formation of nationality. The collective name for Armenians appeared long before our era.
In the Assyrian-Babylonian and Hittite (Van) cuneiforms of the III-I millennia BC, Hayasian and Arimian (Armenian) tribes (or tribal unions) are mentioned, which lived on the territory of historical Armenia.
B.B. Piotrovsky, who dedicated many years to the study of Urartu, came to the conclusion: “…In the second millennium, the process of the formation of the Urartian state took place in the Armenian Highlands from tribal unions.
At the beginning of the 6th century BC, the Urartian state ceased to exist; a new process of strengthening the tribal union began, led by the Armenian tribe… neighboring peoples called this union – Arminoi (Armenia)…” (B.B. Piotrovsky, “The Kingdom of Van (Urartu)”, published by Eastern Literature, Moscow, 1959, p. 275).
The tribal organization gradually (from the 3rd to the 1st millennia BCE) gave way to the state. In the 3rd-1st millennia BCE, state alliances of related tribes appeared. The establishment of Armenian statehood in the Armenian Highlands (the Ararat Kingdom – Bible) is dated to 2107 BCE (Moses of Chorene “History of Armenia”, Moscow, 1893).
While not being an indicator of ethnicity or nation, an independent state plays an important role in strengthening national unity and preserving the distinctiveness of the people. This is exactly the role played by the Armenian state, which, from the 6th to 1st centuries BCE, primarily encompassed the Armenian Highlands and united the emerging Armenian ethnicity.
Anthropological research was also conducted by scientists such as G. Kapantsyan, N. Marr, G. Rawlinson, E. Schultz, L. Haupt, I. Orbeli, Rassam, D. Smith, L. Woolley, E. Khanzadyan, B. Grozny, P. Kretschmer, and many others who indicate migration directions from Armenia and Asia Minor to Europe.
Before the archaeological excavations in the Azokh cave in Artsakh (1960s-1980s), a number of leading archaeologists – supporters of the migration theory – proposed the opposite direction of migration from Europe, as they did not find human fragments from the Lower Paleolithic period, and thus denied the existence of Paleolithic culture remains in the Armenian Highlands.
The mystery of the Azokh cave had not yet been uncovered. Excavations began in the late 1960s and ended in the 1980s. Jacques de Morgan and others concluded in the 1930s that there were no particularly early stages of the Stone Age in Armenia. Morgan further assumes that some areas of the South Caucasus, particularly Armenia, were not populated until the advent of metal tools, and if obsidian was used as a weapon here, it was done only to conserve metal tools.
According to Jacques de Morgan and generally according to the traditional opinion of European historical science, humans entered Armenia from Mesopotamia or Central Asia with an already established culture, and therefore it is pointless to look for traces of early Paleolithic culture here.
However, the materials from the archaeological excavations in the Azokh cave, the historical province of Dizak (now Hadrut district) in Artsakh (a found fragment of a Neanderthal jaw), and a number of other digs have refuted the erroneous assumptions of European archaeologists and serve as reliable sources for studying the development of material and spiritual culture of tribes and peoples in the Lower Paleolithic era, particularly the Armenian people living in the Armenian Highlands.
It should be noted that in the literature devoted to the history of the Armenian people, the historical significance of the role of Artsakh and the Azokh Cave has been strangely forgotten. Historical facts related to Artsakh have been both consciously and unconsciously obscured and forgotten. Unfortunately, one only needs to flip through the relevant Armenian historiographical literature to be convinced of this.
Azokh (this name has been distorted in scientific circles to “Azykh” – author) is a multilayered cave site dating back to the Acheulean period. The Lower Acheulean layer is more archaic, featuring rudimentary hand axes, choppers, and cobblestone tools. The upper layer is characterized by more advanced industry: hand axes, rough scrapers, and pointed tools.
A fragment of an archanthropus jaw was found in the upper Acheulean layer. In 1979, the cave was visited by Professor Henri de Lumley, head of the laboratory at Marseille University in France. The famous scholar called the cave and the jaw fragment found within a “famous discovery of an ancient human civilization on Earth.”
The Deputy Director of the National Museum of India, Professor Guptan, who visited Azokh in 1970 and participated in the excavations, opined that the sixth cultural layer belongs to the pre-Acheulean period of humanity.
Artsakh had very favorable geographical and natural conditions for the life of primitive man. The mountainous landscape covered with forests abundant in fertile trees, and edible wild plants, indicates that ancient humans had plenty to eat and places to hide from dangers. Forests in Artsakh make up over 40% of the republic’s territory.
Therefore, Nagorno-Karabakh is one of those rare centers of ancient human culture where the process of its formation took place.
Excavations of settlements and burials from the Bronze and Iron Ages suggest that the territory of Artsakh was part of the so-called Kura-Araxes culture from the 4th to 3rd millennia BC.
For Indo-European studies, the large burial mounds (kurgans) in Nagorno-Karabakh (Stepanakert, Khojaly, Hachenaget Valley) dating back to the 3rd millennium BC are of particular importance. According to some researchers, these kurgans are among the earliest evidence of Indo-European activity.
The linguistic localization of the people of Karabakh aligns with the geography; the vocabulary and grammatical forms of the current Karabakh dialect retain many features characteristic of the common Indo-European period, as well as numerous forms of the Old Armenian literary language—Grabar.
Currently, this dialect is in use in the NKR (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), as well as among Armenian migrants from Artsakh, now residing in Armenia, the North Caucasus, Central Asia, and other regions of our planet (A.E. Khachatryan “Information on the Karabakh Dialect,” YSU).
Before 1920, Artsakh was the most densely populated Armenian region in the Armenian Highlands. I think the history of the Armenian people should begin with the Azokh Cave in Artsakh, the exploration and excavation of which occurred much later than archaeological research in the territories of the Armenian SSR and Western Armenia.
The found fragment of a Neanderthal jaw in Azokh confirms that the territory of the ancient Armenian province—Artsakh—is as ancient as humankind itself and falls within the scope of anthropogenesis in the East.
In any case, it is indisputable that the latest archaeological discoveries in Azokh provide comprehensive archaeological material evidence, characterizing the Lower Paleolithic and reflecting its systematic development over hundreds of thousands of years.
It has been definitively established that humans appeared on the Armenian Highlands at the dawn of human origin and that this region is one of the oldest centers of human culture, serving as a link connecting Paleolithic cultures in Eastern, and Southern Asia, the Mediterranean, and Europe.
There can be no further doubt that Artsakh (the Armenian Highlands) was also one of the cradles of human civilization.
Speaking of Nagorno-Karabakh, I cannot help but say a few words about the city of Shushi. Until March 23, 1920, Shushi was one of the major cities in the Caucasus, comparable to Tiflis. Shushi exceeded Yerevan and Baku in size and wealth and was a center of Armenian public thought, culture, science, and crafts.
On March 23, 1920, Kemalist and Young Turk executioners, along with Turkotatar bands (newly emerged Azerbaijanis), burned down Shushi. Here is a fragment from an official document:
“Over the course of three days in March 1920, 7,000 Armenian homes were destroyed and burned in Shushi, and over twenty thousand people were killed. Out of thirty-five thousand Armenians in Shushi, not a single one remained” (brochure “Nagorno-Karabakh,” published by the “Society for the Exploration and Study of Azerbaijan,” Baku, 1925. Printing house “Third International”).
Due to its particularly special role in the history of the Armenian people, Shushi, from my point of view, is more ideologically significant than all other existing cities in Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic today.
It concentrates within itself the national memory and faith, and along with Ararat, it is primarily an image of Armenian sorrow, not of a “periodic” kind, but a constant affliction. Unlike the dormant volcano, it is still capable of erupting faith in the future from its depths.
That’s why it’s essential to restore Shushi. Shushi must return to its former glory—as the second capital of the NKR. After liberation, Shushi should once again become an Armenian citadel. It is reasonable to assume that only then will the final point be put in the fight for independence recognition, and the ultimate victory of the Artsakh people will be achieved.
In conclusion, we note: The homeland of the Armenians of the NKR and the entire Armenian nation is the territory where they formed as a distinct people, separate from other nations—the Armenian Highlands.
Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) is a center of human culture, which pushes the history of the Armenian society inhabiting the Armenian Highlands deep into the limitless past.
The Armenian people formed as a result of the consolidation of numerous local tribes, centered around the Armenian tribe—bearers of the Indo-European Armenian language.
The Armenian Highlands is the territory of the geographical localization of the ancestral homeland of the Aryans. Armenians are the first people (in the modern sense of the term) to appear in the territory of Anatolia, while at the same time being one of the most ancient nations that have survived to this day.
Doctor of Philosophy, Prof. S.T. Sarkisyan.
Translated by Vigen Avetisyan
Literature
- I. Petrushevsky, On Pre-Christian Beliefs of the Peasants of Artsakh, Baku, 1930.
- At present, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic includes five districts—Hadrut, Martuni, Askeran, Martakert, and Shushi.
- Expedition materials are stored in the archive of the Ethnography Department of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.
- E. Chantre: “Recherches anthropologiques dans le Caucase.” T. IV. 1887, p. 262 ss.; also: “Apercu sur l’anthropometrie des peuples de la Transcaucasie,” in “Congres internat. d’archeologie et d’anthropologie prehistoriques. 11th session, in Moscow. 1892”. T. II. 1893, p. 43 ss.; also: “Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Armenie russe,” in “Nouv. Archives des Missions scientifiques.” 1893.
- Erkert: “Kopfmessungen kaukasischer Völker,” in “Archiv für Anthropologie.” XIX Bd. 1890; also in “Proceedings of the Caucasian Division of the Geographical Society” – Dr. Pantyukhov: “Anthropological observations in the Caucasus,” in “Notes of the Caucasian Division of the Geographical Society” for 1892.
- Tvor’yanovich: “Materials on the Anthropology of Armenians.” Dissertation. St. Petersburg, 1897.
- F. V. Luschan. Die Tachtadschy und andere Ueberreste der alten Bevölkerung Lykiens, in “Archiv für Anthropologie.” XIX, 1890.
- De Cara. Gli Hethei-Pelasgi. Rome, 1894.
- Prof. G. Sergi. Origin and Spread of the Mediterranean Race, translated into German by Dr. Buhan. L. 1897.
- E. Mouldashev, From Whom Did We Originate?, Moscow, 2002, pp. 42-47.
- U. Bray, D. Trump, “Archaeological Dictionary.” Translated from English. Moscow, Progress, 1990, p. 23.
- I.M. Diakonov. Materials on the Phonetics of the Urartian Language in the book “Questions of Grammar and History of Eastern Languages.” Published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad, 1958, pp. 27-53. G.A. Melikishvili, “Bulletin of Ancient History,” No. 1-4, 1953-1954.
- Bertin, The races of the Babylonian Empire, in “Journal of the Anthropological Institute.” London. 1888. Vol. XVIII.; Ikow. Zur Anthropologie der Juden, in “Archiv für Anthropologie”, Bd. XV; Luschan in “Correspondenz Blatt der d. Anthr. Ges. 1892; S. Weissenberg, Die südrussischen Juden in “Archiv für Anthropologie” Bd. XVIII.
- B.B. Piotrovsky, On the Origin of the Armenian People, Yerevan, 1946; G.A. Kapantsyan, Hayasa – The Cradle of the Armenians, Yerevan, 1947; S.T. Eremyan, On the Question of the Ethnogenesis of the Armenian People, “Questions of History,” 1952, No. 7; S.T. Eremyan, M.S. Asratyan, G.G. Mikaelian, A.R. Ioannisyan, B.B. Piotrovsky, History of the Armenian People, Part One, Yerevan, 1956 (in Armenian). Selected Works by N.Ya. Marr: Vol. I – Stages of Development of the Japhetic Theory, Leningrad, 1933; Vol. II – Fundamental Questions of Linguistics, Leningrad, 1936; Vol. III – Language and Society, Leningrad, 1934; Vol. IV – Fundamental Questions of the History of Language, Leningrad, 1937; Vol. V – Ethno- and Glottogony of Eastern Europe, Leningrad, 1935. I.A. Orbeli, Selected Works in 2 Volumes, Science Publishers, Moscow, 1968; N. Adonts, Armenia in the Era of Justinian, published by YSU, Yerevan, 1971; N.V. Arutyunyan, Biainili (Urartu), published by the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Yerevan, 1970; M.G. Nersisyan, History of the Armenian People, published by YSU, Yerevan, 1980; H. Lynch, Armenia, in 2 Volumes, published by the Trading House “I.E. Pitoev and Co”, Tiflis, 1910; V. Nalbandyan, Lessons of Armenian Antiquity, published by “Sovetakan Grokh,” Yerevan, 1985; L. Miridzhanyan, Origins of Armenian Poetry, published by “Sovetakan Grokh,” 1980; A.T. Ganalanyan, Armenian Legends, published by the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Yerevan, 1979; Johann Schiltberger’s Journey through Europe, Asia, and Africa (from 1394 to 1427), Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, 1997, etc.
- J. de Morgan, Misson Scientifique au Caucase, Paris, 1889, Vol. I, pp. 1-3; the same, La Prehistoire Orientale, Vol. III, Paris, 1927, pp. 19-22; Jacques de Morgan, Prehistoric Humanity, Moscow, 1926, pp. 47. J. de Morgan. La Prehistoire Orientale, Vol. III, Paris, 1927, pp. 32. J. de Morgan. Les Stations Prehistoriques de l’Alagheuz “Revue de l’Ecole d’Anthropologie de Paris”, Vol. IX (1909), pp. 189-203; the same, La Prehistoire Orientale, Vol. III, Paris, 1927, pp. 19-34. Jacques de Morgan, Prehistoric Humanity, Moscow, 1926, pp. 272-288; the same, Misson Scientifique au Caucase, Paris, 1889, Vol. I, pp. 2-3.
- V. Bunak, Anthropological Composition of the Population of the Caucasus, (Bulletin of the State Museum of Georgia, Vol. XIII A, 1946, p. 94). “Kavkazskoe Slovo”, 23., III. 1919. U. Bray, D. Trump, “Archaeological Dictionary”. Translated from English. Moscow, Progress, 1990, p. 129.
- S.T. Sarkisyan, Encyclopedia of Artsakh-Karabakh, ID “Petroplis,” St. Petersburg, 2007, pp. 34-38.
