Falsification of the history of the Artsakh Meliqdoms by Azerbaijani historiography

“late Albanians”, and the contemporary Azerbaijani falsifiers are just
“discovering” them. What “Albanians” are they that the Caucasian
Tatar historians did not know them? Against such a background we
can only add that the writings of contemporary Azerbaijani pseu-
do-history constructors are actually nothing but a unique display of
immeasurable cynicism.
To make the picture more complete we should bring a testimony
worthy of attention from the work “Tarikhi Chelebi-Zade” by Is-
mayil-Asem Efendi Chelebi-Zade, the 18th century Turkish official
(assigned by the state) 37 historian. Depicting the 1726 attack of the
Ottoman army on Artsakh in one of the chapters of his work, namely,
“The annihilation of the Armenians of Sghnakh” he writes: “Although
the Armenians of Sghnakh for more than 15 years had been in a state
of revolt and had been destroying the Ghzlbash villages in their dis-
tricts, had shown obedience after the conquest of Genje (Gandzak) and
gained peace and security owing to the Ottoman government, again
started guerilla activity and caused damage to some places near their
region... The Chief of the Sghankhians, an Armenian named Avan,
had come and established himself on Sghnakh with a cannon and
. The victorious (Ottoman – A.M) army with his command-
er came to the Shushi village which was under the fire of Sghnakh and
by a sudden attack bombarded the Sghnakh with several cannons till
evening. That night the Sghnakhian escaped with several Armenians
that were at his disposal” 38 . Then Chelebi-Zade tells with delight about
the marauding and killings made by the Ottoman army: “The next
day the Islamic soldiers seized their property and belongings and mur-
dered 400 unbeliever escapee Armenians” 39 . The hostility of the Otto-
man chronologist praising the murder of Christian Armenians by the
“victorious” Ottoman army is more than evident. The mentioning of
Armenians in the work of the Turkish official historian cannot be
denied even by the most fanatic contemporary Azerbaijani court
historian.
In the middle of the same 1720s in the work, “On the histories of
the land of Persia”, translated into Armenian from “Hollandizi kazet”
(Dutch magazine) (which is now kept in the Matenadaran named after
Mashtots) we read the following about the heroic struggle of the sghn-
akhs of Artsakh against the Turkish troops: “Once again the Ottoman
wishes that the Armenian centurions obey them, but they do not, be-
cause the fortress of Shushi 40 is with them, especially that their place is
very strong. Many times numerous Ottomans attacked to defeat them,
but with the blessing of God they have not succeeded. But many a time
the Armenian Avan khan has fought against the Ottomans together
with a lot of Armenian troops and he always wins; because of such
deeds the Osmanlu retreated from the Armenian sghnakh and is
scared. They no more send the troops against them and the Armen-
ians of the sghnakh all remain fearless” 41 . So this was a piece of in-
formation on the nationality of the sghnakians of Arshahk translated
from the European “Hollandizi kazet”.
Now after these testimonies we would like to discuss the infor-
mation on the Meliqdoms of Artsakh rendered by Russian state and
military figures. So, in his papers the Russian general Aleksandr V. Su-
vorov (1730-1800) wrоte about the Meliqdoms of Khamsa: “Of the great
Armenian state (Great Armenia – A.M.), after Shah Abbas, during
two centuries the province of Karabakh remained self-governing.
Now there are five meliqs there (meliqdoms - A.M.)” 42 . The Russian
state figure, prince Grigory Potemkin gave the following assignment
to his relative, general Pavel Potemkin by the decree of April 6, 1783:
“Ibrahim khan of Shushi must be overthrown, since after this Kara-
bakh must be an independent Armenian district subject to no one
but Russia” 43 . These Russian figures were key players in the Armenian
Russian relations of the 1780s 44 and their records have great import-
ance. It is not accidental that the Azerbaijani authors tangled in the
web of pseudo-history construction persistently avoid referring to the
information they rendered.
As far as it concerns the works of the Russian historians of the pre-
Soviet period, the picture is more than clear. The renowned historian,
academician P. Butkov wrote the following about Artsakh: “Khara-
bakh is a country between the left bank of the river Arax and the right
bank of the river Kur, up the Mughan plain, in the mountains. Its
main inhabitants are Armenians who are governed by their 5 meliqs
or ancestral princes according to the number of sghnakhs or prov-
inces: 1. Jraberd, 2. Igirmidort (Gyulistan – A.M.), 3. Dizak, 4. Varan-
da, 5. Khachen. Each of them can field 1000 soldiers. Upon the decision
of Nadir Shah those meliqs directly depended on the Shah” 45 .
Another famous author, the military historian V. Potto on the very
first page of his work, “The First Volunteers of Kharabakh”, wrote:
“From the pieces of once great Armenian kingdom (Great Armenia
– A.M.) only Kharabakh belonging to Persia, has preserved as monu-
ments of the past greatness, those ancestral estates of the Armenian
meliqs – the whole territory that stretches from Arax to Kurakchay” 46 .
The same picture can be seen in the works of other Russian authors 47 ,
but not to abuse the volume of our article we will be limited to this
much.
It is clear for any reasonable person that in regard to the national-
ity of the meliqs of Artsakh this great number of Armenian, Russian,
Georgian, European, Persian, Turkish and Caucasian Tatar figures
and authors could not be simultaneously wrong, giving the “laurel of
truth” to the contemporary Azerbaijani pseudo-history constructors
whose “works” in fact speak about the death of historiography in that
country.
Thus, the falsifications of the Azerbaijani pseudo-history con-
structors about the history of the Meliqdoms of Artsakh of the 17 th -
19 th centuries are unmasked through references to numerous authentic
facts and the failure of their spurious “theories” is shown on the basis
of scientific literature.
At the end we would like to refer to another ghastly article in the
same compilation authored by Farida Mamedova, a notorious Azer-
baijani history thief. The latter “reveals” in her article why their furious
attacks were aimed especially at the Armenian liberation movements
of the 1720s and the Armenian Meliqdoms of Artsakh. “There is noth-
ing else but the history of those meliqdoms in the historical arsenal
of the Armenian history of the 18th century” 48 , – opens her cards the
experienced history thief in a conceited manner 49 . But before writing
her article the Azerbaijani pseudo-history constructor who recogniz-
es no limits had to realize that if the history stolen from the natives
of Armenia – the Armenians and the neighboring nations that lived
in the territory of present Azerbaijan is returned to their real owners,
there will be nothing left from artificially formed Azerbaijan’s “hist-
ory”; only pseudo-history invented under presidential supervision of
the Alievs will be.

Translated from Armenian by
S. E. Chraghyan
____________________
(37) In the Ottoman Empire chronology writing had become a state position.
The chronologists were appointed by the sultan, often from among high
officials and people famous for their writing skills.
(39) Ibid., p. 159.
(40) This fact once again proves that the fortress of Shushi existed at the
beginning of the 18 th century (see also Армяно-русские отношения в
первой трети XVIII века. Сборник документов, т. II, ч. I, под ред. А.
Иоаннисяна, Ереван, 1964, с. XLI).
(42) Нерсисян М., А. В. Суворов и русско-армянские отношения в
1770–1780-х годах, Ереван, 1981, с. 135.
(43) Армяно-русские отношения в XVIII веке, т. IV, с. 239.
(44) About the Armenian liberation struggle of 1780s see Иоаннисян А.,
Россия и армянское освободительное движение в 80-х годах XVIII
столетия, Ереван, 1990.
(45) Бутков П., Материалы для новой истории Кавказа, с 1722 по 1803 год, ч.I, СПб., 1869, с. 385; Нагорный Карабах в международном праве и
мировой политике. Документы и комментарий, т. I, составитель Ю.
Барсегов, Москва, 2008, с. 73-74.