The Armenian File -The Myth of Innocence Exposed

327 Pages·2006·1.15 MB·English

by  By Kamuran Gürün

The Myth of Innocence Exposed

by Kamuran Gürün

The members of Armenian terorist group along with the
weapons and bomb found in their house in Adapazari in 1915.
While The Turks were fighting with the Russians, English and
the French, what should have they done with these cold-
blooded murderers who backstabbed The Turks and murdered
women and children while men were away fighting in the
battlefields?
Copyright © 2002 Canmacit Inc. All rights reserved.

Armenia and the Armenians: Origins of the terms Armenia and Armenian.
The earliest known history of the Armenians. The Armenian kingdom of
Cilicia.

The origins of the Armenian Question: The Armenian Church. The
activities of missionaries. The difference of religion. Propaganda.

The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Policies of the Great
Powers: The Ottoman Empire until the imperial reform edict.The policies of
the great powers. From the reform edict to the Berlin Congress. The
population question. Armenian sources. Ottoman sources. Foreign Sources.
The province of Erzurum. The province of Van. The province of Bitlis. The
province of Diyarbekir. The province of Elaziz. The province of Sivas. The
1877-8 Russian war and the Berlin Congress. Total Armenian population.

The Armenian Question: First attempts at reform. The internationalization of
the subject of reform. Armenian preparation for revolt. Associations and
committees. The revolutionary Hunchak Party. The revolutionary Armenian
Federation (Dashnaksutyun). Terrorist activities, rebellions. The Arrest of the
defenders of the Motherland. The incident of Musa Bey. The shoot-out with
the Armenakan band members. The Erzurum incident. The demonstration of
Kumkapi (Kumkapu). Other incidents before the Sassun rebellion.The first
Sassun rebellion. The Babiali demonstration. Incidents in other cities during
1895-96. The Zeitun rebellion. The Van rebellion. The raid on the Ottoman
bank.The second Sassun rebellion. The Yildiz Palace assassination attempt.
Overall picture of the rebellions. Further attempts at reform. The Adana
incident and the end of attempts at reform. The Adana incident. Final attempts
at reform.

The First World War: The Armenians during the War. The relocation decision
and its implementation. The partition of the Ottoman Empire. The elimination
of the eastern front. Armistice and hunting of offenders. The Treaty of Sevres.
The War of Independence: The beginning of the National Struggle and its
aims. The eastern front. The southern front. The western front. The Treaty of
Lausanne.

Armenia and the Armenians

I.The origins of the terms Armenia and Armenian
There are countries which took their names from the people
living on the land. There are also countries which took their
names from their geographic locations or from their
administrative divisions. The residents of these areas have often
forgotten their original names and are remembered simply by
the name of the region they inhabit. We may cite Turkey,
Germany, and France as examples of countries which took their
names from the people living in them. In contrast, Italy and the
United States of America are not the names of people, but
rather geographical names which were adopted by the people
living in these areas, who consequently gave up their original
names.
Likewise, in the ancient past of Anatolia there were geographical
area names, and the people living in these regions were known
by these `geographical' names. As examples we may cite
Cappadocia, Cilicia, Pamphilia, Pafloginya, etc. However, for
those who once lived in these regions, these names were a
means of identification, in the same way that today we say
someone is from Istanbul, from Ankara, and so on.
Many sources claim that Armenia was also such a geographical
region name. Armenians, however, call themselves `Hai' and
their country `Haiastan' and there are no extant sources which
clearly state the origin of the name Armenia. Some early
Armenian historians, among whom we may name Moses of
Khorene, claimed that the Armenians were Urartus and that the
name `Armenia' derived from that of an Urartu king named
`Aramu'. Contemporary Armenian historians have for the most
part discarded this theory. As we shall establish shortly, there
was in fact no relationship between the Urartus and their
civilization on the one hand, and the Armenians on the other.
It is, however, possible to find a degree of truth in Moses of
Khorene's theory if it is approached from another angle.
Specifically, the use of the term Armenia to designate a
geographical region may well have derived from the name
Aramu and then its sources been forgotten. The result was that
while `Armenian' had originally meant `from the region of
Armenia' it lost this meaning. Today, the name Armenian is once
again used in the sense of `from Armenia', though this in fact
has nothing to do with the present country of Armenia. (In
foreign languages there is no distinction made between `from
Armenia' and `Armenian', and the word `Armenian' is used for
both meanings.)
Arnold Toynbee put forth the following ideas with regard to the
origin of the name `Armenian':
"If the valley of the Teleboas had in fact thus been transferred
from Urartu to Armenia at some date between the end of the
Assyrian and the beginning of the Median Age, this might prove
to be the explanation of two puzzling pieces of nomenclature. In
the first place it might explain how the Mushkian (i.e. Phrygian)
followers of Gurdi, who in their own language called themselves
Haik, came to be known in the Achaemenian official terminology
neither as Haik nor as Mushki nor as Gordians, but as
"Arminiya". This old Persian ethnikon of a place name
"Arminiya" may represent the Urartian word Urmeniuhi-ni which
occurs in Menuas' inscription found in the neighbourhood of
Mush as the name of one of the conquered local cities which he
had razed to the ground; and, in confirming the cession of this
Urartian canton called Urmeniuhi-ni to the Mushki intruders who
called themselves Haik, the Medes, and the Persians after them,
may have labeled these new owners of this transferred piece of
Urartian territory with the Urartian local place-name. "
Toynbee, while adding that this explanation is merely
speculation, adds that it is possible that the term `Armenia' may
have been derived from the name of `Erimena', who was the
father of the last Urartian ruler, Russas III; alternatively, it might
derive from `Aruma-ni', which means the country of the
Arameans, a people who came from the North Arabian steppes
at the end of the 11th or beginning of the l0th century BC and
conquered Nairi.
It is not our intention to introduce either historical or
archaeological research on this topic. Our reasons for
mentioning it at all are completely different. While it is accepted
that the name `Haiastan' has nothing to do with the name
`Armenia' or `Haik' with `Armenian', and while it is usual to find
the residents of Armenia in ancient times referred to as
`Armenians', it is not usual for the word Armenian to be used as
though it were synonymous with Haik. Thus it is not possible to
ascertain whether the inhabitants of Armenia were the ancestors
of the Armenians of today, or whether the region inhabited by
those ancestors was identical with the region that was called
Armenia in early times.
While the derivation of the name Armenia as a region thus
remains an unanswered question, it is equally uncertain as to
when the group known as `Haik' first appeared in this area.
As this book is not designed as scholarly research into ancient
Armenian history, we have not seen the necessity to delve into
this subject further. We have been satisfied to repeat what
appears in the books we have used as sources, and have
followed the chronology which they present.
Early Armenian historians, such as Moses of Khorene, Toma
Ardzouni and others, are content to write that the Armenians are
the descendants of the Prophet Noah, and because they accept
that Noah's Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, they claim to
have occupied this region throughout history. While there is no
particular reason to respond to such mythical views of history,
one point which has been overlooked by its proponents should
be mentioned. Namely, if one wants to base understanding of
history on religious books and mythology, one should be
consistent. As these accounts tell how the entire human race
increased from the children of the Prophet Noah, one must
assume likewise that the Turkish people also increased in the
vicinity of Mount Ararat and were successful in maintaining their
hold on the lands of their origin.
Gatteyrias has this to say about the origins of the Armenians :
"When the first tribes began to migrate out of the Pamir Plateau,
one group settled in the Sind Valley to the South, while the
remainder moved North and settled in the Iranian Plateau. As a
result the onl migratory path which remained open was that lying
to the West. Correspondingly, subsequent migratory tribes were
forced to settle in Europe. As they began the first steps of their
migrations they encountered the Caucasus Mountains, and
seeking a passageway they moved South to Asia Minor. .
These tribes who settled in various valleys of Armenia,
developed and lived their own lives without contact with one
another particularly strong, and on occasion formed
confederationsnwith other groups.
When the Assyrians conquered the country of Nairi in the year
1130 sc, upùto the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers, that is, during the period of the first Assyrian Dynasty,
they found them in this state.
During the time of the Second Assyrian Dynasty, these wars of
conquest continued in a more serious fashion and the people of
Urartu of Ararat experienced a whole series of defeats campaign
Armenia surrendered After the eighteenth or nineteenth
campaign Armenia surrendered in 782-780 BC, and for a forty-
year period the Assyrians remained the uncontested rulers of
the Upper Tigris valley. Throughout this period they tried to
expand their civilization.
During these attempts of the Semitic peoples to settle, the
Armenian tribes of Urartu resisted these efforts and
consequently they were able to preserve more effectively than
the others their Aryan blood and spirits. . . .2
Without dwelling on its geographical and historical
inconsistency,
We understand that the: author claims that during the period of
the Great Mi rations the Armenians migrated from the Pamir
Plateau to this region. What is interesting here is that the
Armenians were considered simply as one of the tribes which
comprised the Urartu Empire, and that the word Armenian itself
may have been used as a geographic term to indicate the
Urartu borders.
The ideas of Jacques de Morgan on this point are as follows :
In any case according to the documents at our disposal the
movement of the Armenians from Cappadocia to the Erzurum
Plateau occurred between the viii and vii centuries BC and this
group of people had been occupying the Lake Van and Ararat
regions for at least 600 years.
Macler says
Armenia, or that geographical region known as Armenia since
the earliest period of history, was not always occupied by those
people whom we call Armenians... even if this region was not
the home of another race per se, it certainly was the home of a
people who spoke another language than Armenian.
The first recorded references to the Armenian people are
inscriptions in stone found in Bissutun which date from 515 BC,
that is from the Achemenid period of Darius. These inscriptions
show that Armenia was a Satrap, or province of Darius'
Empire.4
As we see, Macler's view was that Armenia was called Armenia
long
before the people we know as Armenians inhabited it. Later we
shall return to a discussion of the Darius inscriptions.
Let us look at Pastermadjian's book :
. .The Armenians, who are an Indo-European people, first
appear in the East in Urartu, that is Armenia together with the
Kimers who were another Indo-European group from the
Caucasus; or alternatively, they may have come from the West
via the Balkans and Asia Minor in the company of another Indo-
European people, the Phrygians with whom they shared blood
ties. They appear to have arrived in the vii or vi century sc. This
second thesis, which is still accepted in the academic world, is
that the Indo-European Armenians entered Anatolia from the
Balkans.
According to legends the Chieftain of these Indo-European
peoples was named Haik. According to the Armenians, Haik
was the founder of their state and their first king. They gave
themselves the name `Hai,' that is, the sons of Haik .
The Armenian Chroniclers relate that Haik and his people came
and settled in Armenia in the year 2200 BC, and in support of
this they provide a list of Kings and Rulers who lived between
2200 BC and 800 BC. This is a legend which modern historical
scholarship has rejected. Nations, unlike individuals, like to age.
. . 5.
As we read these lines, although it is not clear what theory
Pastermadjian embraced, it is clear that he accepted the idea
that Armenians came to the region called Armenia in the 7th or
6th century sc. As a result, Pastermadjian accepts the arrival of
the Armenians as having occurred one hundred years later than
does Jacques de Morgan.
Let us now examine Nalbandian:
. . .The Urartu Kingdom was not only a powerful military state
but it also had a highly developed civilization. Its people spoke a
non-Aryan language, which has been deciphered and they
believed in a single supreme god whom they named Khaldi. . . .
In the Eighth and Seventh centuries BC a new people invaded
Urartu and conquered it. According to Herodotus, the people
who overthrew Urartu were Phrygian colonists known as
Armenians. As time passed, the Armeno-Phrygian tribes
imposed their Indo-European language on the Urartians, and the
amalgamation of the two peoples resulted in the formation of the
Armenian nation.6.
Let us first say that Herodotus in no way made the claims
attributed to him by Nalbandian. (We shall prove this later. ) On
the other hand, it would be a unique process if a language which
had its own script had been replaced by a language that did not
have a script. Normal progress dictates just the reverse process.
Nalbandian's contribution to the discussion is the idea that the
Armenian people resulted from the combination of some
Phrygian tribes who migrated to this region and the local
populace: in other words, the idea that prior to this time there
had been no such thing as the Armenian people.
Hovannisian's view is: `They had moved on to the Plateau as
Indo-European conquerors and extended their hegemony over
the indigenous peoples whom they eventually assimilated. Then,
after a period of submission to the Achaemenids and Seleucids,
they regained independence under a dynasty that wielded
authority throughout the two centuries before Christ.7
From his style, it is not very clear from where and when
Hovannisian thinks the Armenians arrived. His sense of
scholarship prevents him from writing about points which have
not been scientifically proved. What is clear is that he believes
the Armenians to have migrated from another region to Armenia,
and that this occurred prior to the Achaemenid invasion. In this
respect it is worth recalling that the formation of the Achaemenid
dynasty, that is the invasion of Armenia by the Medes, took
place in the 6th century sc.
The following passages are quoted from Grousset, who was the
author of a large work on Armenian history:
Towards the year 1200 BC one portion of the Thracian tribes
passed over into Asia where they were assimilated into the
Hittite Empire, under the name of Phrygians. These Phrygians
settled on the Anatolian Plateau, and extended their sovereignty
up to the Cilician Gates in the Southeast, and in the Northeast
as far as Hoyuk (the former capital city of the Hittites,
Bogazkoy), which lies to the North of Hattus. According to the
Assyrians they must have been the same Phrygians who are
mentioned in their sources under the name, `Mouchki'. . . .
In the year 677 BC the Assyrian King, Assarhaddon, defeated a
Cimmerian force which was commanded by one Teuchpa or
Tiochpa. This Cimmerian group then moved into Anatolia,
where, between the years 676-675 BC they destroyed the
remaining Phrygians and brought an end to their sovereignty, if
not to their ethnic identity. . . .
These Cimmerians were unable to follow up their victory, but the
Phrygian Empire was not reconstructed, and ultimately it was
partially replaced by the Lydian Empire. Thus, one group of the
defeated Phrygian tribes moved to the east in search of a new
homeland. In all likelihood, this is the manner in which the
people known as Armenians came into being. (8)
Grousset in this way accepts that the group of people whom we
today call Armenians first entered the geographical region of
Armenia after 675 BC.
Particularly today, when Urartian history is no longer a mystery,
owing to the findings of various archaeological excavations, we
have every right to expect that contemporary scholars will
incorporate these new findings into their works. Those readers
who feel this way will be disappointed by Professor Lang's study
which makes the following statement in regard to Urartian
history:
The founder of the unified Urartian kingdom was evidently King
Arame or Aramu, mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions of King
Salmanesar iii under the years 860, 858 and 846 BC, and no
doubt to be identified with the half-legendary Armenian king, Ara
the Fair, loved by Queen Semiramis. . . . The Armenian
chronicler Moses of Khorene regards the Urartian king Aramu as
the eponymous ancestor of the Armenian Nation.(9)
Is it really possible that a professor of history has so failed to
read the current research on Urartian history, that he can still
accept myths written by Moses of Khorene (legends which are
even rejected by many Armenian historians) as historical fact,
and in this manner to find a connection between the Urartians
and Armenians?
Professor Lang goes even further than this, and on page 114 of
his work we read:
As mentioned, the Armenians term themselves `Haik,' and their
land `Hayastan.' There seems good reason to connect this
ethnic name with the old eastern Hittite province of Hayasa, in
mountainous western Armenia, along the upper reaches of the
River Euphrates or Kara-Su. The Hayasa people's language
was evidently related to the ancient Indo-European languages .
After noting the fact that Professor Lang is not a linguist, let us
answer him with Grousset's pen:
The name Hayasa does not go further than to draw attention to
the Armenian name of Armenia. In reality, this is a fortuitous
analogy. As for the location of this region, Louis Dalaporte
placed it near Trebizond. . . Contrary to his opinion, N. Adontz
feels that it was located in the Dersim Mountains on the upper
Euphrates. (10)
The name of the country of Hayasa is also found in a Hittite
inscription which belongs to the reign of Murshilish ii the Hittite
ruler who reigned from 1345 to 1320 BC. Bedrich Hrozny, the
famous Hittitologist and archaeologist, describes this period of
Hittite history as follows:
The Hittite Empire comes to an end around the year 1200 BC.
This catastrophe occurred in the reign of Tuthaliyash v (around
1200 BC), who was the son and successor of Arnuvantash.
Groups of Phrygians, Thracians, and Mycinians, and other
Balkan peoples including Armenians, were pushed into Asia
Minor by the Illyrians. These `migrations' were finally stopped by
the Pharaoh Ramses iii at the gateway of Egypt. When these
waves of migrations ceased it becomes clear that the principal
heirs of the Hittite Empire were the Phrygians in the west, and
the Mouchkis in the east. Further to the south in the Toros and
Anti-Toros mountain ranges a number of small Hittite states
continued to exist right up until the year 717 BC when Sharruken
(Sargon) the Assyrian king conquered the last great Hittite
fortress of Kargemish, thereby bringing the political existence of
the Hittites to an end.(11)
The first appearance of the word Armenia occurs in the Bissutun
inscriptions from the reign of Darius. These inscriptions belong
to the year 515 BC. After this date, the next appearance of the
words Armenia and Armenian in historical texts are found in the
work of Herodotus, who lived between the years 484 and 430
BC.
In Herodotus' works the words `Armenia' and `Armenian' are
mentioned on pp. 120, 244, 358, 360 and 468.(12) On p. 120,
he mentions the area of `Armenia'; on p. 244, while listing the
various Iranian states, he writes: `Pattyica, together with the
Armenians and their neighbours as far as the Black Sea'; on p.
358, after mentioning the `Ionians', `Lydians', `Phrygians',
`Cappadocians', and `Cilicians', he adds: `now the Armenians. .
. . On p. 360 he uses the word `Armenia', writing: `Leaving
Armenia and entering Matiene. . . .' On page 468 we find the
following paragraph:
The dress of the Phrygians was, with a few small differences,
like the Paphlagonian. This people, according to the
Macedonian account, were known as the `Briges' during the
period when they lived in Macedonia, and changed their name
at the same time as, by migrating to Asia, they changed their
country. The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were
armed in the Phrygian fashion and both contingents were
commanded by Artochmes, the husband of one of Darius'
daughters.
Today, almost all serious scholars, relying on the combined
testimony of the Darius inscriptions and Herodotus, accept that
the Armenians migrated to and settled in the region of Armenia
in 515 BC.
Yet in both the Darius inscriptions and in Herodotus' work the
word `Armenian' can also be understood as having the meaning
of `from Armenia'. Neither the Darius inscriptions nor Herodotus
mention a particular race, but rather the people from a given
region. As Armenia was known as such long before the people
we call Armenians entered the region, it is hard to say that the
documents cited prove that the Armenians came to this region
prior to 515 BC.