CHAPTER 1: HISTORY

ANCIENT HISTORY OF AZERBAIJANIANS OF THE IREVAN KHANATE

Azerbaijanians is the total name of the people historically established upon conjunction particularly of turk ethnoses with preference of the oghuz linguistic component. These people were called by themselves and aliens “turks”, and the more ancient form of which is “turuk”. Azerbaijanians are known for their closets neighbors as “turks”. During a long period the Azerbaijanian turks kept also their tribal and original names but application of the name “turk” consolidating the people was gradually preferred. The historical name “Azerbaijanian” given by several people was applied also to Azerbaijanians and Azerbaijani turks. The name “tatar” given to Azerbaijanians by some of nations was borrowed from scientific language belonging to 19^th century. Sometimes they were called also as “Moslems” specifying their religious identity.

In 1936 i.e. during the Soviet reign the ethnonym “turk” was changed to the name “Azerbaijanians” because of political consideration and this name is based upon the choronym “Azerbaijan”. The name “Azerbaijanians” applied over half hundred years as self-naming and alien-naming promoted widening of its content. As alien-naming it began to mean also other ethnic groups inhabiting in the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR although they simultaneously stored own self-naming. Thus, the meaning “Azerbaijanians” predominantly belongs to the Azerbaijani turks. Upon collapse of the USSR and establishment of the independent Azerbaijan Republic the name “turk” became being applied simultaneously with the name “Azerbaijanian” for some time. However, the Azerbaijanians or Azerbaijanian turks historically and presently inhabited in wide adjacent territory. The Azerbaijanian turks as a unique people inhabited in the territory containing the lands from Derbent in the north to Hamadan, Gazvin and Zandjan inclusively in south. The eastern boundaries of the Azerbaijanian Turkish ethnic massive reached the Caspian Sea and, the western borders contained the eastern regions of Georgia and whole Armenia.

This wide region was included into the territory of Azerbaijan still by the medieval geographers. During all periods the Azerbaijanian turks aggregated the advanced and multiple ethnic and linguistic group in this wide territory. The Azerbaijanian khanates including the Irevan (Erivan) khanate the most of the inhabitants of which were Azerbaijani people existed in this territory at the beginning of 19^th century.

The political events commenced since beginning of 19^th century converted the territory of the Azerbaijanian ethnic and linguistic massive. According to the Turkmenchay Peace Treaty concluded between Russia and Iran in 1828 the Azerbaijanian land were divided into two pieces: the southern regions remained in the territory of Iran and the northern areas of khanates passed to Russia. This military and political act commenced start of the mass inhabitance of the Azerbaijanian lands by Armenians coming out of Iran and Turkey. Armenians settled in Garabagh, Gandja and Nakhchivan khanates as well as in the territory of the former Irevan khanate. The aim of the tsarist government in the policy of resettlement of Armenians to the Azerbaijanian khanates of Transcaucasia was establishment of political support here in the future.

Azerbaijanians had the second place on population after Persians in Iran. At first, the previous administrative-territorial division of Azerbaijan was kept there. The system of khanates also was partially stored and Tabriz city had a great significance in the internal and foreign policy of the state. However, later on (1906) its administrative boundaries got narrower. The northern lands of Azerbaijan were exposed to another situation. Russia liquidated the khanate system of management in the places of Azerbaijanians’ inhabitance and established commandant form of management. In 1844 the Caucasian governorship established by the tsarist government constituted provinces containing Tiflis, Kutaisi, Shamakhy and Derbent as province centers. Several years later the Irevan province was established and this province included the Nakhchivan and Ordubad counties and, undoubtedly, the inhabitants of the former Irevan khanate.

Division of Azerbaijan between Russia and Iran caused different ethnopolitical subsequences. If in the south of Azerbaijan the compact inhabitance of Azerbaijanian turks was anyhow kept within sole province those in the north of Azerbaijan settled in various provinces. Thus, the tsarist government of Russia realized the administrative-territorial division in Russia basing upon not the ethnic principle but political motives resulting in breakdown of Azerbaijanians and their inclusion into various provinces. This act may be considered as the first step done for the purpose of breakdown of the Azerbaijanians of the former Irevan khanate as well as the entire Irevan province from the rest turk massive of Northern Azerbaijan and Transcaucasia. This step caused a case when Armenians commenced gradually pretending to the lands they were settled in upon efforts of the Russian powers.

There’s a lot of historical cases when native inhabitants were expatriated from own settlements by means of violence, persecution and cruelty being exposed to crucifixion and destruction. Since beginning of 20^th century such bloody moments repeatedly occurred in the mutual relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia rousing by Armenian nationalistic leaders. The history has to be always remembered. It was forgotten that during seventy years of Soviet regime upon the willing of the Armenian prodashnak powers and Echmiadzyn clergy the territory of Azerbaijan was secretly or evidently stolen and Azerbaijanians were periodically expatriated from own native land in newly established Armenia for the sake of further creation of the “Great Armenia from one sea to another” in the expense of alien lands belonging not only to Azerbaijan. As the historical documentation proves, the first and as it seemed, quite forgotten symptoms of this obsession exposing also the Armenian people to a lot of deprivations, crucifixion and grieves expressed in resettlement of Armenians in Transcaucasia in 19^th century with pleasure of tsarist government and further was strengthened and became keener during the World War I. Firstly, the object of the Armenian territorial pretensions was the territory of the so-called historical Armenia in the Eastern Anatolia being and integral part of the Osmanly empire subsequently resettled to Transcaucasia i.e. territory inhabited by Azerbaijanians and other Moslems. The center of distribution of the territorial pretensions to neighbors and commitment of military actions against Azerbaijanians was Armenia created in 1918 in the lands of Azerbaijanians i.e. in the territory of the former Irevan khanate. Furthermore, Irevan city mainly inhabited by Azerbaijanian turks was given to them as a capital upon approval of the National Council of Azerbaijan and at urgent request of the prodashnak leaders of the Ararat republic of the newly established Armenia. Instead of it Armenians should renounce own pretensions regarding the Mountainous Garabagh. This pliability unable to be vindicated even by complexity of the international and internal situation of the Azerbaijan Republic cost one dear. Subsequently, the Armenian pretensions to the Mountainous Garabagh didn’t recess but the Azerbaijanian lands of the former Irevan khanate together with Irevan city were eternally lost for Azerbaijan. Upon establishment of the Soviet regime in Transcaucasia these losses were legitimated with establishment of the Armenian SSR. Simultaneously, the idea of establishment of the “Great Armenia from one sea to another” remained valid and expected for available moment to be realized. However, the Soviet regime succeeded to bring to reason the appetites of the prodashnak leaders for the time being and put an end to their bloody action against Azerbaijanians. Nevertheless, the Armenian nationalistic and prodashnak elements sitting in the central governmental bodies were stealthily planning modification of the demographic correlation of the inhabitants in favor of Armenians aggregating minority in newly established Armenia. Upon the World War II they succeeded officially gaining resettlement of Azerbaijanians from Armenia to Azerbaijan and provision of their residences and estates to the Armenians resettled from Iran, and only Stalin’s death expired realization of the plan of “purification of Armenia from Azerbaijanians” commenced a long ago. However, over hundred thousands of Azerbaijanians from Armenia came to Azerbaijan but none of them was allowed to inhabit in Mountainous Garabagh. Evidently, the plan of the Soviet regime was directed to storage and further increase of the statistical balance of the Armenian inhabitants in Azerbaijan. The Policy of the Armenian government relatively to Azerbaijanians caused their further migration from Armenia.

The new stage of the violent expatriation of Azerbaijanians from Armenia commenced from the massacre by the Armenian armed robbers against Azerbaijanians inhabiting in Azerbaijan. In autumn 1987 the territorial pretensions of Armenians against Azerbaijan were expressed on pages of western papers. It gradually caused bloody events like expatriation, massacre and murder of Azerbaijanians in Mountainous Garabagh of Azerbaijan as well as the towns and villages of Armenia. The Central power and the proarmenian mass-media made their best for preventing the voice of the Azerbaijanian people and the groans of those innocently murdered from being heard and expressed in the world mass-media. It was prosperity of the Soviet regime hereby digging own grave. It was continuation of realization of the Armenian plan regarding final expatriation of Azerbaijanians and other Moslems from native lands. There was no Azerbaijanian person in Armenia at the end of 1988 excluding the inhabitants of Nuvady village expatriated in 1991. Expulsion of the remaining Moslem Kurds from Armenia began in 1989. The Armenian dashnak leaders had a great experience of fight for establishment of Armenia state causing human tragedy. Upon establishment of the revolutionary and nationalistic parties Armenakan, Gnchak and “Dashnaksutyun” in the last quarter of 19^th century one of the main purposes of their leaders was preparation of revolt of the Armenian inhabitants against the Osmanly empire in order to establish an Armenian state in Eastern Anatolia. They planned resettling the Moslem inhabitants i.e. Kurd and Turkish people from there with further settling there the Armenians from other countries hereby trying to provoke the European military interference to the events in Turkey. Upon failure of the Armenian nationalists’ adventure the dashnaks turned their view to Russia. Benefiting the Russian-Turkish wars in the second half of 19^th century and subsequently, incursion of the Russian army into Eastern Anatolia the Armenian leaders committed massacres of Moslem villages in order to provoke attack of Kurd and Turkish people on Armenians. Succeeding in this effort they committed mutual extirpation of Armenian and Moslem inhabitants. Everybody admits that namely Armenians made contribution on suffers of own people because the Armenian nationalistic groups in the person of the dashnaks undoubtedly acted as organizers of mass destruction of Kurd and Turkish people in Eastern Anatolia and later in Transcaucasia. The Armenian actions committed during the World War I against the Kurd and Turkish people in Eastern Anatolia as well as the Azerbaijanians of the part of Azerbaijan occupied by Russia containing also the territory of the former Irevan khanate were consciously kept by the western mass-media in silence. The general tragedy of the inhabitants of the above-mentioned spacious region in conditions of existence of the anti-turk campaign abroad during the World War II used to be and presently is expressed as “Armenian genocide” ignoring the massacres of the Moslem inhabitants by Armenians. If there happened genocide in Anatolia it was a genocide committed by the both groups initiated by the Armenian proadshnak leaders. The efforts of the Armenian nationalistic and prodashnak leaders towards establishment of the Armenian state in the territory of Turkey entirely failed causing unprecedented general human tragedy. But these efforts were perfectly grounded in Transcaucasia where in the territory of the former Irevan khanate the conditions caused establishment of “Armenia” in the expense of Azerbaijanian lands although none provinces of Osmanly, Iran or Russian empires had enough number of Armenians for establishment of “Armenia” or Armenian state. The “Armenia” established in Transcaucasia didn’t conform to historical Armenia previously covering a small region in southwest of the Van Lake.

Early antiquity. The ancient history of the region of the Irevan khanate is closely connected to the history of Azerbaijan from one side and of Near Asia from other one. The political, commercial, economic and ethnic processes happening in the ancient Near Asia expressed in the Transcaucasian countries including the above-mentioned regions in equal levels with some variations. The data regarding the early antiquity are specified in the archeological materials researched under rubrics of Armenian history relatively to the Irevan region. Ancient monuments concerning to paleolith and neolith were discovered here. The archeological digs proved that Transcaucasia was one of the centers of the early farming culture. The eneolith monuments of Azerbaijan as well as southeast Geogia and Aghrydagh (Ararat) valley allowed to discover both analogous and various moments of archeological culture of these Transcaucasian regions. The archeological digs in the Keultapah settlement nearby Nakhchivan commenced researches of the Transcaucasian eneolith conditionally named as Kur-Araz eneolith and directly covering the early farming culture of the Aghrydagh valley i.e. the territory close to the Nakhchivan region. The eneolith hills of the Ararat valley are analogous with those in the Keultapah settlement but their ceramic complexes differ. At the same time, the motive (a black mural in shape of vertical fluid lines) on one of the ceramic fragments without burnishing in Keultapah is analogous with the mural on Aghrydagh and apparently, it may prove connections of the Keultapah settlement with eneolithic monuments of the Aghrydagh valley in certain period. The ceramics with handles from Nakhcivan and Aghrydagh are also comparable in the background of connections. The vessels made of clue with vegetable mixture originated in Azerbaijan are comparable with the jars found in the Tekhut settlement of the Aghridagh valley. Furthermore, some part of the ceramics from this region gets close to those with Kur-Araz view.

The starting period of the Kur-Araz culture is determined by the second half of the 4^th millennium B.C. but, judging by the radiocarbon analysis the monuments belonging to the Kur-Araz culture are dated in the 3^rd millennium B.C. i.e. the period of early bronze. The Kur-Araz culture area was quite spacious and covered the regions of Transcaucasia, Eastern Anatoly, the western bank of of the Urmiya Lake, the southwest of Middle Asia, Syria, Palestine, Dagestan, Chechenistan and Ossetia. The motherland of the Kur-Araz eneolith was searched in the regions of Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatoly as well as northeast Iran. As the earliest complexes of the Kur-Araz culture were expressed in Keultapah (Nakhchivan) the center of distribution of this culture was considered as Transcaucasia and concretely, the Kur-Araz plain.

One of the features of the Kur-Araz culture is construction of circle houses. This type of houses was discovered during the archeological digs in southeast Georgia, the Aghrydagh valley and Azerbaijan, and they’re rooted in the eneolith period when circle houses were the main and advanced shape of housing construction in Western Azerbaijan, and circle constructions dominate in the Nakhchivan architecture in the epoch of early bronze. Curcle houses have analogues not only in the regions from Kur River to Araz one but also the Khalaf culture of northern Mesopotamia. Both circle and rectangular houses were simultaneously constructed in the certain period in Azerbaijan and the mentioned Transcaucasian regions and it conformed to architecture of Khalaf culture of the 5^th millennium B.C. and characterized as mutual impact of the cultures of Ancient East and Caucasus. Hereby it’s assumable that the merging zone of the two constructional traditions in Transcaucasia was Nakhchivan (Keultapah) the culture if which impacted also on the constructional affair of the Aghrydagh valley. The Ubeyd culture with specific type of circle houses spread from Mesopotamia in northern direction in the 4^th millennium. The Ubeyd culture belonged to protoshumers. It’s not occasional that the eneolithic monuments of Transcaucasia including Azerbaijan have obvious traces of northern Mesopotamian i.e. Khalaf-Ubeyd impact. This impact is spread also in Central Anatoly in the Syro-Kylikia zone as well as in Azerbaijan and the Aghrydagh valley zone. Central Caucasia and Eastern Anatoly aggregated a spacious cultural circle containing the regions of Van and Urmiya Lakes already in 3^rd millennium.

Burial tumuli were spread in Transcaucasia and their chronological frames cover the end of eneolith and the Bronze Age. The burial tumuli belonging to the eneolith period and Bronze Age were discovered in the territory of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia behind the Araz River. Probably, the dead tribal chieftains were buried in these tumuli and it assumes establishment of tribal units in the mentioned region. These tumuli have traces of corpse-burning (cremation) and corpse-laying (inhumation). The burial tumuli existed in enough area from the northern bank of of the Black Sea until the steppes on the banks of the Volga River, and shores of the Aral Sea. It’s suggested that the relations of the so-called “tumulus” culture were kept with the Front Asia through the Middle Asia and Caucasus. Thus, the analyzed region behind the Araz River was included to the circle of burial rites although the relations with the Front Asia are also discovered in some traces.

Numerous opinions mainly remaining as hypotheses have been expressed regarding the ethnic composition of the inhabitants owning the above-mentioned cultures. V.M.Masson underscores the impact of southern Ubeyd on northern Mesopotamia in 4^th millennium B.C. and notes extension of the northern variant of the Ubeyd culture acting as accumulation of the Khalaf traditions as well as the neighboring regions of northern Mesopotamia hereby concerning relocation of the Ubeyd culture in northern direction with infiltration of protoshumer tribes. Besides it, the author suggests belonging of the monuments of Khalaf culture to the Khurrits’ tribal units and existence of Transcaucasian eastern Anatolian cultural unanimity with participation of Khurrit-language community in 3^rd millennium B.C.

I.M.Dyakonov mentioned that the area of the Kur-Araz culture closely conforms to the area of Khurrit-Urartu linguistic group. In his opinion, the burial monuments such as Trialety, Kyrovakana (in Azerbaijanian – Garakilsa) and Lchashena (in Azerbaijanian – Eurdakly close to the Sevan (Geuycha) Lake) belonging to the etiun tribes prove strong cultural relations with the Khurrit world. According to B.B.Pyotrovsky, the Lchashen tumuli concerning to the end of 2^nd millennium B.C. belonged to the chieftain of the tribes against which the urartians stubbornly fought during their progress in Transcaucasia. T.V.Gamkrelidze and V.V.Ivanov pay attention to the impact of the Khalaf culture on the Anatolian settlements in the west as well as the northern Syria and Iran, and the community of the cultures synchronous with Transcaucasia. Furthermore, they assume existence of ethnically various inhabitants within this cultural community and suggest that each of the separate ethnic groups included to this cultural community should be characterized by own language and the local cultural features. Noting that the area of the Kur-Araz culture included various ethnic units and groups T.V.Gamkrelidze and V.V.Ivanov considered as creators and owners of the Kur-Araz culture the Khurrit ethnic element and the southern Caucasian ethnos as well as certain IE ethnic units separated from the IE language until this period.

The Khurrit and Urartu languages were considered as relative to the Caucasian and, at the last times, the Nakh-Dagestan languages basing upon insufficiently precise comparisons. As it was evident, the owners of the conforming cultures of eneolith and early bronze belonged to these IE ethnoses. The prototurkish ethnos always existing in the considered territory was entirely ignored. There are other convincing arguments supporting the opinion regarding existence of prototurks in spacious regions where the eneolithic and bronze Kur-Araz culture existed. According to A.Erzen, a very powerful early Khurrit culture unit named as Kur-Araz culture, early Khurrit culture, etc. was established in the considered region since the 4^th millennium B.C. He considered Khurrits as the creators of this culture and linked their early culture with Eastern Anatolia from where it spread to the northern Syria, Transcaucasia and northeast Iran to the Urmiya Lake. Reminding the relation of the Khurrit and Urartu languages A.Erzen specifies the agglutinative character of these languages and on this background mentions their similarity with the Ural-Altay languages including to this family also the Turk languages. A.Erzen links the ancient circle houses with circle-shaped tents (marquees) constructed by Anatolian and Azerbaijanian turks even nowadays. The Khurrit language not all texts of which are sufficiently investigated contains turk grammatical elements and vocabulary. Thus, the prototurk ethnoses also could participate in creation of the Kur-Araz culture and it’s proven also by another facts.

It’s noticeable that Khurrits are noted in wedge-shaped sources only in start of 2^nd millennium B.C., and judging by some proper nouns they appeared in north of Mesopotamia at the end of 3^rd millennium B.C. The proper nouns arrogated to Khurrits like Arisen, Ari, Arip-Ari have in own essence the general turk word “ar” (“a man”, “a husband”; “brave, courageus”) and “ary” (“noble, saint ”). Meaning the prototurk impact on Khurrits it’s possible to say that Khurrits used to live compound with the prototurk ethnoses and before their arrival the northern Mesopotamia was inhabited by tribes named “subir” by shumers and “subar” by akkads. Identification of these ethnoses with Khurrits is wrong. The Khalaf culture appeared in northern Mesopotamia inhabited by subir / subar tribes. Subsequently, subarees may be considered as owners and creators of the Khalaf culture. The ethnic term subir / subar hasn’t any analogue of ancient people but is evidently identified with names of turk ethnoses “suvar / subir / sabir”. The basis of the ancient ethnonym is particle “sub-” added by formants or words “-ar / ir”. The ethnonim is discovered in the sources also in truncated form (su) and other suffixial design (subi-suvbi). These words have analogues in turk languages: ancient turk – sub / suv “water”, turk – su, ar/ ir – either index of plural like the suffix –bi, or the word meaning “a man, a husband”, or an ancient turk ethnonym. In this case the name has meaning of “water tribe”.

The Ubeyd culture of southern Mesopotamia appeared in 4^th millennium B.C. delved into northern Mesopotamia and gained th Khalaf cultural traditions. The northern variant of the Ubeyd culture distributed in various directions including towards Transcaucasia is connected with infiltration of protoshumer tribes. As it’s known, the shumer language is connected with turk ones. The investigations of the recent years discovered majority of shumer-turk lexical parallels and basing upon establishment of phonetic pattern. The shumer language expresses the vocabulary of the eastern and western turk dialects. It’s assumed that the shumer language separated from the prolanguage identified with turk ones very early. Probably, shumers were in close contacts with prototurks and mixed jointly. Thus, dissemination of the shumer-turk ethnic groups into the circle of Kur-Araz eneolith isn’t excluded.

This circle included also the so-called tumulus culture closely connected to Middle Asia. These tumuli appeared in the eneolith period and later in Azerbaijan and, in the early bronze period in the neighboring Transcaucasian countries. The connections of the tumuli with Middle Asia prove that this burial form appeared in a spacious territory and may be concerned with resettlement of prototurk ethnoses. Thus, the area of the Kur-Araz culture contained various ethnic units including the early turk ethnic groups. Kuties, lullubies, subarees / subirs as well as turukks and kumans specified in sources of 2^nd century B.C. were included to the early turk units and groups and their names are elucidated from the turk languages. This zone was inhabited also by light turks.

Urartu in the Aghrydagh valley. In the 2^nd B.C. establishment of tribes unit having own chieftains continued in the zone of dwelling of the tumulus culture owners. The written sources of the period of Urartu occupations in the Aghrydagh valley till the Sevan (Geuycha) Lake specify that separate districts in these regions were managed by own small rulers. Urartu state appeared and strengthened in zone of the Van Lake in Eastern Anatolia (Turkey) in the 9^th – 8^th centuries B.C. Since that period the Urartu kings committed military campaign in northern direction and reached the Sevan Lake. This region named Etiuni / Etiukhi in the Urartu inscription covered a huge territory from the banks of the Araz River in south i.e. Geumry and Aghrydagh valley and to the basin of the Sevan Lake in north. Probably, the Urartu people meant almost the entire Transcaucasian territory under Etiuni country. It’s assumable that Etiuni connected various political formations having own rulers. Ishpuini, the Urartu king (825-812 B.C.) and Menua, his son (812-803 B.C.) occupied in north the lands of Uetirukhi, Lusha and Katarza tribes with helps of Etiuni kings. Etiuni inhabited in zone of Geumry (former Leninakan). However, the Etiuni kings were thrown back and the territory of the mentioned tribes was robbed and a lot of men and women were taken prisoner and various kinds of cattle were stolen.

Subsequently Menua committed campaign to zone of the Aghrydagh slope inhabited by Irekua tribe and Lukhiuni, its capital located. Menua constructed here installations as a base for progressing to the regions behind the Araz River. It’s assumed that the fortress was constructed in the region of Bashbulagh village in distance of five kilometers from Dashburun on the northern slope of Ararat mountain.

In the second half of 9^th century B.C. the Urartu kings committed military campaigns to the region of the Araz River with robbery purposes and constructed there fortifications for protection from attack of Etiunians as well as for further attack in northern direction. Etiunians had own kings helping to the tribes in the region of the Araz River exposed to the Urartians’ assault. Certainly, these small state formations in Etiuni not accumulated in a unique center couldn’t stop the Uratians’ movement to the north with own military raids. This progress to the north particularly strengthened during reign of Argishty I (786-764 B.C.). In the second year of own ruling Argishty I continued own campaign and reached the Igany country (the region of the Chaldyr Lake) and came to the Eriakhy country (in northern direction from the present Geumry (future Leninakan) as well as the Apuny and Uetirukhy countries located nearby. This campaign resulted in occupation of the Lusha, Katarza and Gulutakhy countries. He dethroned the king of Lusha and obliged the king of Igany to pay tribute. The specified small countries located in the zone of modern Geumry.

Argishty directed his next campaigns towards the Ararat valley and reached the Sevan Lake. In the third year of own reign Argishty I occupied in the Aghrydagh valley the Abilianikhy, Anishtirgae and Kuarzany countries and passing through the Etiuny countries reached the Udury-Etiuny countries. In the fifth year of own reign Argishty I occupied Kiekhuny city and reached Alishtu city. This fact is proven by the inscription discovered close to Eurdakly (Lcashen) village located in northeast of the Sevan Lake. The Uburda country together with royal Irdua city as well as the Uishushiny and Khakhy countries apparently located in the Aghrydagh valley also was occupied the same year. He returned with a lot of loots.

Judging by the inscriptions of Argishty I discovered near to the Ganlydja and Guludjan villages close to Geumry the Urartians occupied Irdaniuny city to the Ishkigulu in Eriakhy country as well as Durubany city with Kuliainy country and in the Irevani region they occupied Uluany country with Darany city. Argishty I commenced construction activity in the occupied coutries. Remains of the ancient fortification named as Erebuny (possible readings are irepuny and irpuny / irbuny) were dug on the Ganly Tapa near to Irevan city. This fortress was constructed by Argishty I for suppression of the inhabitants of the hostile country i.e. Etiuni. Judging by the inscription Argishty himself named this fortress Irpuny. But it’s not explained in Urartu language because the essence of the name “Irpuny” (Irepuny) rather includes any local word. It’s known that the Urartian kings named the newly constructed fortresses with the names of either gods or kings. Argishty constituted the name “Argishtykhinily” for the fortress constructed on the hill near the present Kurduklu (Armavir). According to the inscription, Argishtykhinily was constructed “in the hostile Aza country” where Argishty laid a channel.

Thus, during the reign of Argishty I at the beginning of 8^th century B.C. Urartians reached during occupations the region of the Sevan Lake and constructed two big fortresses in the Aghrydagh valley named Erebuny and Argishtykhinily. The former was constructed for protecting from the local inhabitants and the latter was envisaged for realization of economical activity. Occupations by Argishty I resulted in fortification of Urartians only in the Aghrydagh valley. The campaigns committed by Sardury II, his successor (764-735 B.C.) were directed to the non-occupied regions of the Chaldyran Lake, Geumry and Sevan Lake. In the region of the Chaldyran Lake the Urartians occupied the Igany country together with its kings included to the Etiukhy region. The Eriakhy country was exposed to assault of urartians several times in the Geumry region. Here Sardury II conquered the royal Urieiuny city of the Uiterukhy country. In the middle of 8^th century B.C. Sardury II committed a campaign to the Aghrydagh valley where he destroyed the Abylianikhy country but spared the king Murinu in condition of tribute payment. The campaign committed by Sardury II was directed against the Etiuny and Liky countries. The campaign testified that this part of the Etiuny country possibly named as Laky had fortress towns with own kings. Thus, there were town states in the Agrydagh valley (as well as in other places of Etiuny) and it proves the early period of state establishment. In the inscription of Sardury II the conquered towns are called in consequence of “Edia town, royal Abiany city…, Iruia town, royal Irkua city (of the tribe chieftain)…, Irua town, royal Ueirda city (of the tribe chieftain)… . I won Puinialkhy, the city king but spared him in condition of tribute payment.” Thousands people and cattle were stolen in these towns.

Sardury II committed own military actions in Sevan region. In the eastern bank of of the Sevan Lake where the Uelikuni country located the Urartian king won Murinu. About ten years later i.e. in 742-741 B.C. during the recurring campaign of Sardury II to Uelikuny the king of this country Nidiny obeyed to him and began to pay tribute to the Urartu king. However, Suardury occupied 22 fortresses in the battle and took men and women to Urartu. It proves that the people inhabiting on the bank of of the Sevan Lake used to construct fortresses. In this region Sardury II conquered the royal Tulikhy coty of the country belonging to the Luekhukhy reigned by Tsynaliby carried off together with his people. The Urartian king’s inscription was discovered near the Adiyaman village. He notes here that he reached the Udury-Etiuny country. Sardury II won the kings of the Udury-Etiuny countries i.e. Arkukiuny, Lueruny, Kamany. The Adakhuny, Eshuma, Kualbany, Ukhuny and Teriany counties with 20 fortresses and 120 settlements also were occupied. Certainly, he committed devastations and ravages also here. Rusa, the successor of Sardury II (735-714 B.C.) continued own conquests in the region of the Sevan Lake. He won the king of the Uelikukhy country and expelled him out of the country. He praised himself regarding conquest of 23 countries some of which like Adakhuny, Uelikukhy, Luerukhy, Arkukiny located in one bank of of the Lake and the rest ones like Gurkumely, Shanatuainy, Ternunshainy, Rishuainy, Arianiny, Zamany, Irkimatarny, Elainy, Erieltuaniny, Aidamnaniuny, Gurianiny, Alzirady, Piruainy, Shilainy, Uiduainy, Atezainy, Erianiny, Azameruniny situated on the other one on the slope of high mountains and constructed a fortress there devoted to the god Teishebe. Later Rusa II (685-645 B.C.) also constructed a fortress named Teishebainy near to Irevan on the hill called Girmizy Tapa (Arm. Karmir-blur). The Teishebainy fortress constructed in the Aghrydagh plain was the regional administrative center of Urartu. Rusa II commenced to construction activity in the Kuarliny valley between Girmizy Tapa and Euchkilsah (Echmiadzyn) and laid a channel through the Ildarunia (present Zangy) River. These occupied districts behind the Araz River remained belonging to Urartu until its subjugation by Mydia at the end of 7^th century B.C.

The ethnic composition of the inhabitants of the conquered countries behind the Araz River. The ethnic composition of the Urartian inhabitants was heterogeneous. There existed a tribal unit named Uruatry in south from the Van Lake at the end of 2^nd century and this tribal unit established the name Urartu. The meaning of this geographical term isn’t determined yet. The name “Urartu” firstly was discovered in the Assyrian inscriptions. It’s not of Urartian origin. Probably, the name “Urarty” is Uruatry of the local origin. A. Says basing upon the ancient lexical analogues offered the meaning “a high country” for Urartu. This meaning is precise if we consider that Urartu is a mountainous country. Unfortunately, hitherto the turk linguistic factor wasn’t involved for interpretation of the ancient toponymies and choronymies and this fact caused a significant gap in etymologization of the ancient toponymies. On this background the name Urarty probably consists of turk “ur / ury” meaning “height”, and “art” meaning “mountain / plateau”. Urartu meant “Plateau with heights”. The component “atry” in the name “Uruatry” acts as a metathesis of the form “artu” (in the name “Urartu”) and it’s specific for the phonetic transposition in the turk languages.

In the Babylonian versions of the Persian inscriptions the name Urartu is specified as “Urashtu” and it may be established from “Uralt” or “Oralt” forms. In this case the name has a phonetic modification of the sound r-l-sh and it’s also specific for the turk languages.

It was mentioned above that some part of the regions occupied by Urartians on the bank of of the Sevan Lake is specified in inscriptions as the Udury-Etiuny country. Judging by the inscriptions Etiuny covers a spacious territory from the region of present Gars and Chaldyran Lake in the west to the Sevan Lake in the east. The Udury-Etiuny country is mentioned only in three inscriptions belonging to Argishty I and Sardury II and specifying the kings (without names) of the Arkukiuny, Kamaniu and Lueruniu tribes. It leaves an impression that the Udury-Etiuny lands located oppositely to or behind the Etiuny country. This circumstance causes a thought that the word “udury” in this name has no lexical meaning but is a common noun specifying the location of the conquered countries in relation to Etiuny. Such interpretation (another one is unavailable for the context) grants to the word “udury” the meaning “near / oppositely / behind”. There’s a word containing such meaning in turk languages. They have a word “uturu / uduru” in various forms meaning “in front of, oppositely”. Subsequently, Udury-Etiuny means “a country opposite to Etiuny”. Later Rusa I occupying the Sevan Lake region hadn’t applied the name of the Udury-Etiuny country but divides the districts included to this country (most of them isn’t mentioned before) together with their kings (unnamed) into two parts i.e. the kings in one and the other bank of of the Lake.

Thus, the ethnic composition of the inhabitants both of Urartu itself and Etiuny with Udury-Etiuny had turk ethnoses inhabiting here in the period of the considered archeological cultures. The tribal name Kamannu attested in the Etiuny-Udury country is possible for identification with the name of the kuman / kumen tribe of the cuneiform sources belonging to 13^th – 8^th century B.C. These tribes later having the kuman / koman ethnonym attested for meaning the turk ethnoses inhabited in the north of Mesopotamia in the territory of the ancient Subira / Subartu country. The kuman / koman ethnonym is etymologized in the meaning of “fair-haired, blond”, etc. basing upon the turk “ku” word meaning “fair, white, light-yellow”. According to the Chinese sources the late kumans were blue-eyed and fair-haired. It’s noticeable that blond and fair-haired people existed also among the ancient subirs able to be considered as prototurks. According to the purchasing documents and etymology of names the kuties, neighbors of the ancient subirs and kumans also were blond turk ethnoses. Considering the outwards similarity of the name of the Kamaniu (-iu is a suffix) tribe with the kuman / koman ethonym the “a” phoneme possibly is expression of “u/o” or the dialectical transference mentions their identity. The Urartian inscriptions specify also the Kualbany country in the Sevan Lake region. The second part of this name is identified with the late name “alban” and the first part is interpreted as turk “ku” meaning “blond, fair-haired”. Consequently, Ku-albany means “fair albanians” and it conforms to the late information of the antique authors characterizing them as “fair-haired”. The name Arkukiny may be identified with the late name of turk arkuget / argu ethnos expressed in the toponymy of the southern region of the Sevan Lake. The name Etiuny / Etiukhy is interesting. Both names designed with various ancient suffixes base upon “eti” component. Probably, it’s either a common name or a geographical term. However, the Assyrian wedge-shaped inscriptions belonging to 8^th century B.C. specify the name of the “itu / utu” tribe. Bearers of this ethnonym in southeast of the Urmiya Lake rendered custodial and other service on the Assyrian side. The names “eti” and “itu / utu” may be considered as various phonetic forms of the same ethnonym probably formed of common noun. This region included to the zone of turuks, turk ethnoses. Itu / utu sections were sent to any town in extreme cases. They had own chieftains. Itu / utu served in custody of alderman asking the Assyrian king the permission for it. They were sent against the enemies of Assyria and acted as a part of subsidiary troops and were used in reconnaissance. One of the texts mentions the country Itaya (mat Itaya – the Itayans’ country). This country located in the northern part of Assyria within Urartu. The military forces itu / utu were used in extreme situations. It gives an impression that this tribe aggregated fast-acting military divisions. On this background the name of the “eti” tribe attested behind the Araz River as well as “itu / utu” serving in Assyrian army is identified with the turk word “iti” meaning “zealous, rapid, sharp”. Later they were known in Azerbaijan as utii as well as “utigur” (“uti tribe”) and “utidors” in Hun-turks unit. Thus, the ancient turk ethnoses specified with turk word “iti” turned into ethnonym anciently inhabited in a spacious territory from the north of Mesopotamia till the region of the Azov Sea and the Danube River. Certainly, this unit contained also other ethnoses. In this connection, the doubts regarding identification of the name Etiuny with the tribal name of the Caucasian-language udins named “udi” gains a real basis.

The name Urartu in the Babylonian form was specified as Irashtu and it could be read also as Oraltu / Uraltu. According to the Babylonian phonetics the combination “lt” pronounced also as “sht”. However, it’s not a Babylonian but a local phonetic phenomenon. The turk languages have an appropriate phonetic modification l / sh. Possibly, the phonetic modification of the name Urartu / Uraltu / Urashtu existed owing to the prototurk language.

Some of the names of the Aghrydagh valley settlements and the Sevan Lake regions specified in the Urartian inscriptions have modified parallels in the modern and former toponymies and hereby the consequent settlements were inhabited by Azerbaijani turks. Urartian Aydamaniu is Azerbaijanian Adyaman (modified into Aychemen in 19^th century), Urartian Adakhuni is Adakha in Arsakh (12^th century), Aday-Su, Adachay (19^th century, the Middle Caucasus) inhabited by turk ethnoses, Urartian Arkukiny is Arku (12^th century, Zangazur), turk hydronyms Arku-Gum, Arkulug (19^th century, the Middle Caucasus), Argubel (in “Dada-Gorgud” epos), Urartian Elainy is Azerbaijani Elidje (19^th century, the toponym in the Geuycha region and the hydronym in the Mountainous Garabagh), Urartian Kuliany is Azerbaijanian Gulidjan (in Alageuz), Urartian Guria is Azerbaijanian Kurikend, Kyuran, Kyurut (19^th century, the toponymies in Zangazur), Urartian Kuarliny is Azerbaijanian Kavar (modified into Nor-Bayazid in the middle of 19^th centure, the present Kamo), Urartian Pirua is Azerbaijanian Piri-Bartaz, Piridjan, Pirniut (19^th century, Zangazur), Pirily (near to Iravan in the beginning of 19^th century), Urartian Urtekhiny is Azerbaijanian Eurdakly (present Lchashen), and Urartian Shanatuainy is Azerbaijanian Shinatag (oronym and toponym in Zangazur in 19^th century the inhabitants of which consisted of Azerbaijanian people as well as in the previous cases). Judging by the components “tag” (turk “mountain”) and tua, metathesis pf turk “tau” meaning “mountain” both names are of turk origin. The word “shana” in turk languages mean “pitchfork, trident” and consequently, the word “shanatua” means “trident mountain”. This comparison and the toponymic parallels prove that the occupied regions of the Aghrydagh and Sevan (Geuycha) districts were anciently inhabited by Azerbaijanian turks and generally, turk ethnoses storing the ancient toponymies as modified.

In the beginning of 6^th century B.C. the Urartian state stopped existing. The main essence Urartu firstly was included into Mydian and later the Ahamanian orb. Probably, the rulers of the lands behind the Araz River including the rulers of the mountains and plains of Aghrydagh region i.e. the former Etiuny and Udury-Etiuny (“opposite to Etiuny”) nominally recognized to supreme power of the above-mentioned orbs. The Mydian culture and, precisely even the Aderbaygan (Atropaten) mydian culture where the Mannian historical tradition predominated had a significant impact also on the regions behind the Araz River. It’s not known from the sources how did the inhabitants of the Aghrydagh and other regions behind the Araz River to the coup d'etat in the Ahamanian orb committed by Bardi-Gaumata (522 B.C.) and Dari I (521 B.C.). But it’s known that Bardi-Gaumata released for three years the all people obeying to Ahamanians from assessment and they mourned over his murder. There were also the turk ethnoses of the empire among them giving him the sobriquet Tanioxar (in turk language “Tani okuz ar” i.e. “A man like an oxe”). It’s not occasional that upon his death several countries including the Urartian region rioted against Dari I. The Babylonian version (II, 29-63) of the Bekhistun inscription of Dari I (521-494 B.C.) applies the term Urashtu for indication of this region as well as “Arminiya” and “Arminiaip” in the ancient Persian and Elam versions (II, 23-25). But the name Urartu is specified in the Bible as “Ararat” meaning not a mountain but a country. Thus, instead of the “Urarty” term the “Arminy” one appeared for indicating the region in south of the Van Lake in the last quarter of 6^th century. Both the name “Armini” and “Ararat” are used in the early inscriptions as geographical meanings not concerning to the lands in the north of the Araz River. The Bekhistun inscription specifies one of those rioted in Babylon as Arakha (Elam variant is Arakka), Khaltida’s son. Arakha / Arakka is an inhabitant of Armini / Urashtu and apparently, set out for supporting not only the social but also the religious policy of Bardi-Gaumata. On this background the leader of the riot probably was a religious person following of Khaldy, the Urartian god. Despite of the Arami origin offered for this name Aramians didn’t have such names. The name may be identified with the ancient turk Arag / Aryg one meaning “saint, pious” The basis of the name Arminy / Armenia is the ethnonym “armen” mentioned in the ancient sources and formed from common name. Previously all inhabitants of Arminy / Armenia were named such. Armens could be the ancient khurryts, kumans, subars, kuties and turuks i.e. the ancient turks inhabited in the north of Mesopotamia. The name “armen” from position of the turk languages is etymologized as “red-haired” and probably “fair-haired”. In ancient turk language “ar” means “red-haired”, and man / men is a suffix forming ethnic names. Probably, the preliminary name “armen” meant fair- and red-haired ethnoses of this region e.g. kumans, subirs, kuties aggregating the ancient inhabitants of the region in the north of Mesopotamia and only subsequently to strengthening of the alien khays-Armenians this term took aim on them. So, the ethnonym “armen” formed from the ancient turk common word meant all inhabitants of Armenia.

The ancient turks and Armenia. Judging by Herodotus (I, 180, 194; V, 49) previously Armenia was the name of the country located in the head of the Euphrates River neighboring to Kilikia in the southeast of Anatolia. Myletian Hekatei had noted that Armenians inhabited in south of khalibs, but according to Xenophontus (IX, 5, 35) Armenia is neighboring country of khalibs inhabiting in Eastern Anatolia in north of armens. These authors lived in 6^th-4^th century B.C. Later Byzantine Stephan (5^th century B.C.) located them in the same area i.e. near to Pont on the Termodonte River from where Amazons and Gargars came to Transcaucasia. Besides it, Byzantine Stephan enlarged the term “Armenia” till the Kur River. If in the early antique sources the name “Armenia” covered a small district in the Eastern Anatolia named as Little Armenia since the 1^st century B.C. the boundaries of Armenia extended till the Caspian Sea and was named as Big or Great Armenia containing the lands of Azerbaijan between the Araz and Kur Rivers as well as the spacious Aghrydagh region from the Araz River to the Sevan Lake region. This division firstly was vividly expressed in the “Geography” by Strabon, an author living in from 1^st century B.C. to 1^st century A.C. Strabon (XI, 14, 5) clarifies that Armenia previously had a large space but the commanders of the Selevkid ruler Great Antiokh (223-187 B.C.) Artaksky (Armenian Artashes I, 189-160 B.C.) and Zariardy enlarged the boundaries of Armenia by means of conquering of the areas belonging to neighboring Mydians, Iberians, Khalibs, Mosineks, Kataons and Syrians. Hereby Strabon adds that “all (of them now) speak in the same language” (XI, 14, 15). However, it’s not understandable which linguistic situation Strabon means. Although several scientists assume linguistic Armenization of these conquered regions but the advanced languages in these regions were Persian and turk acting as the intercourse language among various people included in Armenia. As the Caspian region belonging to both Albania and Atropatena became the object of conquest by Artashes I, Strabon basing upon own geographical conception located Armenia and Mydia on the line of Tavr leading it to the Caspian Sea. It was appearance of the geographical name Great Armenia the territory of which contained the regions behind the Araz River i.e. the Aghrydagh region and the right-bank from Albania to the Caspian Sea. The inhabitants of Armenia in ethnic and linguistic relation always were dissimilar. So, the meaning of the Great Armenia never was ethnic or politic but geographical one. Counting the nationalities of the Caspian zone Dionisy called Huns, Albanians, Kadusies, Mards and other ones but never had mentioned armens. Strabon calls in the north of Mesopotamia within Tavr the armens besides the Mydians, Parphyans, Kylikians and others (book II, 5, 32). Strabon calls the inhabitants of the Small and Great Armenia as armens bordering upon Iberians and Albanians in the north and Mydian-Atropatenians in the west. The ethnonym “armens” are applied by Strabon as inhabitant of Armenia without any ethnic and linguistic composition. Only in one case Strabon inclines to link the armens from the Small Armenia with Arabians and Syrians, Thus, the name “armen” has no concrete ethnic composition by Strabon and means an inhabitant of Armenia. On this background even the Armenian kings were simply the inhabitants of Armenia or those designated from the outside and their levies consisted of various ethnoses. Anyway, despite of the difference of assumptions the time of conjunction of the ethnic meanings “armen” and “hay” remains problematic. It happened in the process o and after acceptation of Christianity by hays-Armenians.

As a result of the military and administrative reform of Sasanies in 4^th century Armenia, Albania, Iberia and Atropatena were united into the northern administrative region including also the Aghrydagh district the inhabitants of which predominantly consisted of the turk ethnoses. It’s proved also by the toponymy of this region. Thus, Strabon (XI, 14, 6) speaking about the towns of Armenia mentions them on the bank of the Araz River in the Aghrydagh region. He notes regarding the Artaksak town that it’s a flowering town and the capital of the country. “It’s located on a ledge similar to the peninsula and a river flows in front of its walls excluding the space on a isthmus surrounded by ditch and palisade.” The name of the city was pronounced as “Artashat” in the language of the local inhabitants: the ancient Greeks pronounced it as “x” due to absence of the sound “sh”. Indeed, the historical Artashat used to locate on the bank of the Araz River near to the Kichik Vedi village in the Aghrydagh region. The city was established on a low chain of mountains anciently surrounded by the Araz River. Probably, the river ramified here into branches. The archeological researches discovered that sometimes a fortress Araz was constructed on this rocky height surrounded by the Araz River. Consequently, the name of the city shall conform to the geographical landscape of the area but not the occasionally similar words. The name Artashat occurred on the ground of the turk languages where the word “art” means “plateau, mountain ridge” and the word “shat” has a meaning of “rocky height, mountain ledge, river branches”. Considering this interpretation Artashat may be etymologized as a “plateau on the river bank” and it’s quietly conforms to the Strabon’s description regarding the location of Artaxata-Artashat. Let’s note that the modern Artashat has nothing in common with the historical Artashat and is renaming of turk name “Gamarly”.

Artashat was neighboring to the historical Dvin city characterized by Moses Khorensky as a Persian word meaning “a hill”. But the Persian language and especially, the pahlavian one doesn’t contain such a word. The name “Dvin” is formed from turk “daban” with consequent meanings of “hill, pass”.

The name of the Koman trade center specified by Strabon and located in the zone of Eastern Anatolia belongs to the turk ethnonym koman / kuman certified still in cuneiform. There located the Adiabena country in the north of Mesopotamia close to Armenia and according to Strabon, the inhabitants of this country were called “sakkopod” meaning from the position of turk languages “sak-hipped”, “sak-legged” (“pod”-“boud” means “hip, leg” in turk languages).

In the Middle Ages Armenia had inhabited tribes owing turk ethnonyms. The turk ethnoses inhabited in entire Armenia including the Aghrydagh region and participated in Christianization of the region. Upon occupation by Arabians the Aghrydagh region was included into the Azerbaijan administrative region as well as into various Azerbaijanian turk ethnoses

The Arabian sources previously included all spacious Iravan region into Azerbaijan because this region was entirely included into the Sasanian empire, and governed by the same governor. However, the caliph Abdulmalik ibn Mirvan (685-705) realized administrative division where the geographical interpretation “Armenia / Ermeniyye” is preferred. Thus, all Azerbaijanian lands besides the other ones remained in the territory of the administrative unit “Ermeniyye”, and the Iravan region fell into the composition of 3^rd Armenia. Certainly, the administrative unit “Ermeniyye” contained various nations including turk ones. However, it would be impossible to consider the history of the Aghrydagh region separately from the history of Transcaucasia and Front Asia because this region was and remained a part of Azerbaijan for a long time. In the Urartian time the country was named Etiuny and Udury Etiuny (“Opposite to Etiuny”) and fought against incursion by Urartians when independence of this region was annulled. Upon collapse of Urartu the Aghrydagh region nominally admitted the political superiority of Mydia having quite strong cultural impact on the inhabitants of the region. Apparently, the same state existed also during reign of the Ahamanian dynasty. Upon collapse of the Ahamanian government (330 B.C.) the Aghrydagh region tried to store own independence sometimes becoming an object of battles between Partians and Romans. In the early Middle Ages the political power of Sasanians was established here and these people were obliged to traverse the Byzantine interference into this region. In this period the turk inhabitants of this Azerbaijanian region also partially participated in provision of victory of Christianity in the Aghrydagh region but the major part of the inhabitants remained faithful to the ancient creeds and subsequently accepted the Islamic religion. Till 18^th century this district was included into the row of turk states of Azerbaijan until establishment of the independent Irevan khanate passing into Russia in 1828.

Стр.| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |