In the 20th century, many propagandists of history (as I call such historians) began to question the work of Movses Khorenatsi, which until the end of the 19th century, no one in world historiography considered a legend. The main focus of this skepticism is the first chapter of Khorenatsi’s “History of Armenia,” written based on the work of the ancient Syrian historian Mar Abas Katina.
Historical Context
For a long time, the world learned about the history of Armenia through history textbooks that presented the origin of the Armenian people and state according to Khorenatsi. Consequently, the autochthony of Armenians in the Armenian Highlands was not questioned.
The Rise of Doubt
The basis for doubting the truthfulness of Khorenatsi’s account in the first chapter of “History of Armenia” about the origin of the Armenian people was the book “Comparative Linguistics,” published at the end of the 19th century. The hypothesis presented in it about the Indo-European origin of the Armenian language raised the issue of the homeland of Indo-European peoples, implying that Armenians were newcomers to the Armenian Highlands.
Although this theory had a short life, historians with political motives still try to impose it on the world. Interestingly, this absurd hypothesis was based on a small linguistic error. But let’s take it step by step.
The Linguistic Error
In 1802, German scholar and traveler Carsten Niebuhr published an ancient Parthian cuneiform inscription found in Persepolis in 1621. This publication caught the eye of a simple schoolteacher in the city of Münden, Georg Friedrich Grotefend, and his friend. A brief discussion of Niebuhr’s publication led to a bet on whether Grotefend could decipher the cuneiform script with an unfamiliar writing system. Grotefend won the bet, becoming the author of the first sensation in a series of subsequent discoveries.
Archaeological Discoveries
In 1827, Eduard Schulz, dispatched by the French Asiatic Society, arrived in Van to investigate Khorenatsi’s poetic account of the Assyrian queen Semiramis’s role in building the city of Van. Schulz was killed by a Kurdish band two years later, but he had accomplished much of his mission by then.
After his death, British cartographer and researcher Clayton arrived in Van and conducted excavations on the fortress hill of Dzoravank. Later, Srvanztian wrote about the structures found during the excavations, ranging from ceremonial halls to vaulted caches, where many valuable items were discovered.
The Emergence of Urartu
The cuneiform inscriptions found in Van were similar to Assyrian ones but represented a different language. However, a linguistic error led to the misreading of “Ararat” (the name of the country and mountain Ararat derived from the Armenian deity Ara or Aramazd) as “Urartu.” Thus, at the end of the 19th century, a new state, Urartu, with its language, emerged. Urartu was attributed all known events that occurred in the vast territory north of the Hittite kingdom, around Lake Van, declaring the first part of Khorenatsi’s “History of Armenia” a fiction.
The Discovery of Hayasa-Azzi
In 1906, German archaeologists discovered the Bogazkoy archive or the archive of Hittite kings near modern Ankara. It took almost ten years to decipher them. In 1915, Czech historian and linguist Bedřich Hrozný read the inscriptions, revealing that the Armenian Highlands were home to the state of Hayasa-Azzi, not Urartu.
Conclusion
The discovery of Hayasa-Azzi and subsequent archaeological findings have reshaped our understanding of the region’s history. The term “Urartu” is now considered a misinterpretation, and the true historical context of the Armenian Highlands is being restored. The work of Movses Khorenatsi remains a valuable source, reflecting the rich heritage and autochthony of the Armenian people in their homeland.
Artatsolum
Based on an Excerpt from Suren Ayvazyan’s book: “From the History of Culture of Ancient Armenia”
