|
NO GENOCIDE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION 1: WAS EASTERN ANATOLIA THE
ORIGINAL HOMELAND OF THE ARMENIANS?
Even Armenian historians disagree on this
question. Let us examine some of
their contradictory theories while
looking into Anatolian history.
1. The Biblical Noah Theory. According to
this idea, the Armenians descended
from Hayk, great-great grandson of
the Biblical patriarch Noah. Since Noah's
Arc is supposed to
have come to rest on Mount Ararat, the
advocates of this idea conclude
that eastern Anatolia must have been
the original Armenian homeland, adding that
Hayk lived some four hundred years
and expanded his dominion as far as Babylon.
This claim is
based entirely on fables, not on any
scientific evidence, and is not worthy of
further consideration. The historian
Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses it
stating that "it
depends entirely on information provided by
some Armenian
historians, most of which was
made up."
2. The Urartu Theory. Some Armenians claim
that they were the people of
Urartu, which existed in eastern
Anatolia starting about 3000 B.C. until it
was defeated
and destroyed by the Medes, with its
territory being contested for some time by
Lydia and the
Medes until it finally fell under the
influence of the latter. This claim has no
basis in fact. No
form of the name Armenian is found in any
inscription in Anatolia dating
from that period, nor was there any
similarity at all between the Armenian
language and that
of Urartu, the former being a member of the
Satem group of Indo European
languages, while the latter was
similar to the Ural-Altaic languages. Nor
were there any
similarities between their cultures. The
most recent archaeological finds in the area
of Erzurum support these conclusions
very clearly. There is, therefore,
absolutely no
evidence at all to support the claim that
the people of Urartu were Armenian.
3. The Thracian-Phrygian Theory. The theory
most favored by Armenian
historians claims that they descended
from a Thracian-Phrygian group, that
originated in the Balkan Peninsula
and by the pressure of Illyrians migrated to
eastern Anatolia
in the sixth century B.C. This theory is
based on the fact that the name Armenian
was mentioned for the first time in
the Behistan inscription of the Mede
(Persian) Emperor
Darius from the year 521 B.C.,"I defeated
the Armenians." If accepted, of course,
this view effectively contradicts and
disproves the Noah and Urartu theories.
4. The Southern Caucasus Theory. This idea
claims that the Armenians are
related racially and culturally to
the peoples of the Southern Caucasus and
that, therefore,
they originated there. It is, however,
supported only by the fact that Darius
defeated the Armenians in the
Caucasus. The Armenians are in no way
related to any of
the Caucasian races.
5. The Turanian Theory. Some Armenians have
adduced similarities of certain
elements of the Armenian language and
culture with those of some Turkish and Azeri
tribes of the Caucasus to document a
relationship, but this remains to be proved.
Whichever, if any, of these theories
is correct, it is very certain that the
Armenians did not originate in
Anatolia, nor did they live there for three
to four thousand
years, as claimed. They have put forward
these ideas merely to support their
claims that the Turks drove them out
of a homeland in which they have lived for
thousands of years, but they can not
stand up to the facts.
BACK
|
|
|
| | |
