REFLECTIONS ON A. K. SHAHINYAN'S ARTICLE "NAKHICHEVAN AS PART OF THE ARAB CALIPHATE"*

In 1998, Arsen Karapetovich Shahinyan's book "Transcaucasia as part of the Arab Caliphate"was published by the Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University. Referred to in the abstract as a "monograph" written "on the basis of multilingual primary sources", this publication promised to present its readers with "a comprehensive history of the Transcaucasian countries during the period of Arab rule (VII-IX centuries)". Mentioning in the introduction the works of famous historians-orientalists Z. M. Buniyatov, A. N. Ter-Gevondyan, A. P. Novoseltsev and others, the author especially stated that " none of these works covers all the problems related to the history of the entire Transcaucasia of the VII-IX centuries, and does not give a complete picture of the region in which we are interested as a result, many questions on the history of Transcaucasia as a whole remain insufficiently studied" (p.10). Intrigued by such a promising, but nevertheless ambitious statement in relation to his not only sufficiently talented, but also outstanding predecessors, I tried to determine how much the author was able to fully present the "picture of the region"than they did. After going through this paper page by page and not finding a single fresh thought, not a single word in it that could have been used to describe it. to supplement the research of A. K. Shahinyan's predecessors on the issues under study, I was not only disappointed, but also stunned: the entire work was a blatant plagiarism from the books of the above-mentioned famous scientists. Thus, a good three-quarters of the text presented by A. K. Shahinyan was an almost verbatim rewrite of the work of the Armenian scientist A. N. Ter-Gevondyan "Armenia and the Arab Caliphate "(Yerevan, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, 1977). The remaining quarter of the text was mostly borrowed from the books of Academician Ziya Buniyatov " Azerbaijan in the VII-TX centuries "(Baku, Elm Publishing House, 1965), A. P. Novoseltsev "The Genesis of Feudalism in the Transcaucasian countries" (Nauka Publishing House, GRVL, Moscow, 1980), Ya. A. Manandyan's " On Trade and Cities of Armenia in connection with the World trade of Ancient times "(Yerevan University Press, Yerevan, 1954) and a very small part - from the research of S. Ashurbeyli, A. Metz, S. Melik-Bakhshyan and others. Here we found different types of plagiarism: verbatim, abbreviated or with omissions, diverse (from different books - half a sentence from one, half from another), slightly altered due to the desired result, etc. "Creative" approach of A. K. Shahinyan was expressed only in replacing the words "Armenia", "Armenian Highlands" or "Azerbaijan" with "Transcaucasia", "Arran" with "Albania" and several names, dates, etc.

In order not to be unfounded, I will give just a few examples in this paper, comparing the texts of A. K. Shaginyan and his predecessors for clarity.

A. Ter-Gevondyan, p. 35:

A. Shaginyan, p. 26:

Armenia was virtually defenseless. The Empire not only failed to protect the country from the Arabs, but also stirred up religious disputes. In this difficult political situation, Theodoros Rshtuni took a bold step that was fatal for the future fate of the Armenian state in the seventh century. He severed ties with Byzantium and made a treaty with Mu'awiyah, transforming Armenia (albeit formally) to a state subordinate to the Caliphate.

Transcaucasia was virtually defenseless. The Empire not only failed to protect its peoples from the Arabs, but also stirred up religious disputes. In such a situation, the head of the Transcaucasian Union, Rshtuni, took a bold step that had a fatal significance in the future fate of the peoples of Transcaucasia. He severed ties with Byzantium and concluded a treaty with Muawiyah (ruler of Syria since 640), turning the countries of Transcaucasia, albeit formally, into a subordinate state to the caliphate.

* The article was partially published online: http://www.zerkalo.az/2013/razmyishleniya-popovodu-stati-a-k-shaginyana-nahichevan-v-sostave-arabskogo-halifata/ (note ed.).

page 205
Ziya Buniyatov, p. 38:

A. Shaginyan, p. 11:

By the beginning of the seventh century, almost the entire Middle East, including Transcaucasia, was divided between two powerful rivals: Byzantium and Sasanian Iran... At the end of the sixth century. Like Azerbaijan, Gak and Arran were part of the Sasanian Empire and, together with Iberia and Armenia, formed one of the four administrative divisions of the Northern Viceroyalty (Caucasian Kustak) Empire.

By the seventh century, almost the entire Middle East, including Transcaucasia, was divided between two powerful rivals - Byzantium and Sasanian Iran. At the end of the sixth century, most of Transcaucasia (since 387) became part of the Sasanian Empire and, together with neighboring regions, formed one of the four administrative divisions of Iran - the Northern Viceroyalty (Caucasian Kustak).

Ya. Manandyan, p. 192:

A. Shaginyan, p. 60:

The result of the severe upheavals experienced by Armenia in the eighth century was a prolonged decline in culture, as well as stagnation and even regression of economic life in Armenia, accompanied by a strong weakening of monetary and economic relations.

.. The result of all these upheavals experienced by the Transcaucasian countries in the seventh and ninth centuries was a prolonged decline in culture, as well as stagnation and even regression of the economic life of Transcaucasia, accompanied by a strong weakening of monetary and economic relations.

A. Novoseltsev, p. 196:

A. Shahinyan, p. 13;

...In the considered epoch, by the end of the VI century. For Armenia and somewhat later for Kartli and Albania, the Naharars-Mtavars became the main social and political force in Transcaucasia.

In the period under review (meaning the 7th-9th centuries), the Naharars - Mtavars became the main social and political force in Transcaucasia for Armenia, Kartli, and Albania.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar examples in the above-mentioned work of A. K. Shaginyan. I gave them in my review published in the 3rd issue of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (series of History, Philosophy and Law)" for 2001 (pp. 227-248). An abridged version of this review was published in the journal of the St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Written Monuments of the East" (Velikhanova, 2005, 2 (3) autumn-winter, pp. 266-269).

Due to the current circumstances, I did not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the further works of A. Shahinyan "Armenia on the eve of the Arab conquest" (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House. University Press, 2003), " Armenia and Arminia as part of the Umayyad Caliphate "(Vestnik SPb. University, ser. 2, issue 1. History, 2008, 1), "The system of administrative division and administration of the Arab Caliphate in Armenia and Arminia" (VMU, Ser. 13. Oriental Studies, No. 3, 2008, 2). However, based on the "original" method of the author, demonstrated by him in the course of the study of the Arab Caliphate in Armenia and Arminia (VMU, Ser. 13. Oriental Studies, No. 3, 2008, 2). when writing his" monograph ""Transcaucasia as part of the Arab Caliphate", one could hardly expect a new word in science from him, because, first of all, the issues raised in his subsequent works were carefully studied by scientists, including Armenian ones by the same A. Ter-Gevondyan, as well as S. Eremyan, A. Nalbandyan, by J. Manandyan, S. Shlepchyan, and others. Azerbaijani, Georgian, and Dagestani scholars also, naturally (for this is part of their history), widely covered the issues raised in the above-mentioned works of A. Shahinyan, even before him. And secondly, his "work" "Transcaucasia as part of the Arab Caliphate", which I reviewed, included many questions concerning the period under study, including political and administrative ones, which again became the subjects of his research.

A review of A. Shahinyan's regular article "Nakhichevan as part of the Arab Caliphate", published in the 3rd issue of the magazine "Vostok (Oriens)" for 2012, showed that the author, referring to " scientific disputes over the administrative affiliation of the capital of the present Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic... in the era of Arab power...", and this time he wants to act as an arbitrator: he is trying."..once again analyze all the information available to the orientalist historian from the Arab-Muslim written monuments concerning this city, located on the left bank of the Arak River, at the foot of the Biblical Mount Ararat " (p. 109). Call us-

page 206
I would like to make an adjustment: Nakhchivan is located on the Nakhchivan Plain, on the bank of a tributary of the Araks-the Nakhchivanchay River, and has nothing to do with Mount Ararat, which is located in Turkey, a hundred kilometers southwest of it, or at its foot (see map).

The very first sentence of this article makes one think: the author, referring to the era of Arab power in the South Caucasus (i.e., in Transcaucasia), does not include Azerbaijan and Greater Armenia separately named by him, meaning, most likely, by the first - the territory of Southern (Iranian) Azerbaijan (he has Adzarbayjan), and under the second - historical Armenia, i.e. the territory that is not included in the borders of the South Caucasus. At the same time, A. Shahinyan believes that disputes on this issue continue to this day, blaming the late (d. 1997) Azerbaijani academician Ziya Buniyatov for this, who allegedly initiated them. However, it is known that even before 3. Buniyatov, Armenian and Azerbaijani researchers, each separately, in different works, of course, mentioned Nakhchivan, including it (depending on the author) in the list of cities of either Armenia or Azerbaijan (see generalizing books on the history of the Armenian people or Azerbaijan). Ziya Buniyatov, who chose the topic on the history of Azerbaijan in the Arab period, had to present an objective picture of the studied era and region on the basis of multilingual, primarily Arabic, primary sources. And as a pioneer, he achieved a lot. By the way, 3. Buniyatov never denied the well-known fact of the existence of the Arabic administrative name "Arminiya", which A. Shahinyan reproaches him for (see: [Zh. Buniyatov. Azerbaijan in the VII-IX centuries, p. 41, ed. 15]). As for the fact that A. Shahinyan, according to him, was finally able to make sure of this, and even more so "to find out that this province (i.e. Arminia - NV) is a part of the Armenian state.) finally formed in 701", seems actually "curious". After all, this is a long-known truth, both Armenian and Azerbaijani historians have written about it [A. N. Tsr-Gevondyan. Armenia and the Arab Caliphate, p. 155; N. Velikhanov. The change in the historical geography of Azerbaijan as a result of the Arab conquest, p. 52 and others]. And that by the Arab administrative province of Azerbaijan (and not Adzarbayjan), the early medieval Arab authors mostly meant the territory south of the Araks, a fact that is well-known and not denied by anyone. And it is mentioned in all our studies for the specified period. It is also well known that the term Azerbaijan is an arabized name for the historical Atropatene (Sasanid. Adurbadagan, Armenia. Atrpatakan) - Small Mussels(?) or Media-Atropatene, formed in the late 20s of the IV century BC after the collapse of the empire of Alexander the Great. According to research, it was during the Atropatene period that the very concept of "Azerbaijan" was formed, as well as political and ethno-cultural factors related to it (see: [History of Azerbaijan, 1998, I]). In the period of its power, namely in the 20s of the III century BC. According to Polybius, under King Artabazan, this kingdom "extended from the Caspian Sea to the upper reaches of the Rioni, thus including at least some part of Armenia and Iberia" (ibid.).

It should be noted that contrary to the statements of some scientists and non-scientists about the creation of a state with the name Azerbaijan only in the XX century, its formation and development should be associated with the Hellenistic era. For it was at this time (i.e., after the collapse of the Macedonian Empire) that the states of Albanians, Armenians, and others were formed in the region under study.

It is also known that in the VI century AD, according to the administrative reform of the Sasanian king Khosrov II Anushirvan, the Caucasian or northern bush, called Adurbadagan (Azerbaijan), was created, which included, along with the territory of historical Azerbaijan (covering both its southern and northern parts), also a number of cities of modern Iran, the lands of Eastern Georgia and Eastern Armenia. It is also well known that the Arabs, who inherited after the conquest the pre-Arab administrative system of Byzantine Armenia, which was formed in the middle of the sixth century, after the reform of Emperor Justinian II, created their own on this basis; however, unlike Byzantine I-IV Armenia, the newly formed Arab province included not only the lands of Armenia proper, conquered by the Arabs. earlier South Caucasus (in 640), but also the territory of the former Albania and Iberia. Both Armenian and Azerbaijani scientists wrote about this in the middle of the XX century (if not earlier). It should also be said that A. Shahinyan does not make a discovery at all when he states that "...we managed to find out ...Administratively, it is (i.e. Arminia. - N. V. Arminiya I (Arminiya - Armenia), Arminiya II (Arran - Albania) and Arminiya III (Jurzan-Kartli) were subdivided into three units." After all, this is one of the versions given by Arab authors of the IX century (Ibn Khordadbeh, Ibn al-Faqi-

page 207
khom, al-Balazuri, al-Ya'qubi) regarding the Arab division of the lands conquered by the Arabs in the Caucasus; this version was also mentioned by A. Ter-Gevondyan (p. 157). However, it is still well-known (as evidenced by the above-mentioned sources) that the Arab Arminia was divided into four parts in tribute to tradition, and not into three, as L. Shahinyan writes. The only truth is that such a section was not in essence, did not reflect the real picture of the historical geography of the region and, perhaps, therefore, was not mentioned in synchronous local sources; it was simply artificially formed during the conquest. Apparently, this is why the Arab authors, who were faced with ambiguous material on this region, along with the administrative name "Arminiya", which included neighboring non - Armenian lands, also retained the pre-Arab Sasanian administrative name of the Azerbaijan region-Adurbadagan. This name, which under the last Sasanians covered the territory of the entire Northern Bush, together with Albania and Atropatene, and under the Arabs in some sources refers not only to southern, but also to northern Azerbaijan, combining them. Thus, Ibn al-Faqih (p. 285), referring to the borders of Azerbaijan, places it between the borders of Barda and Zanjan, and also names in its composition such cities as Mughan and Beylagan. Kudama (p. 244), describing Azerbaijan and its districts, calls Barda (i.e., the capital of Arran-Albania) the main city. Al-Ya'qubi (p. 271), describing the route Barzand Varsan-Beylagan Barda, calls the last point the city of Upper Azerbaijan. Ibn Haukal refers to the entire coastal zone from Derbend to Gilan as Azerbaijan on his map of the Caspian (Khazar) Sea. Another map of this author is also interesting, which clearly indicates the limits of the South Caucasus regions, and Armenia itself is placed only between the lakes. Hilat (Van) and the upper course of the Arake River, i.e. outside the South Caucasus. In the Persian revision of the work of the 9th-century author at-Tabari, owned by Bal'ami (d. 974), there is a very interesting report about the Eastern Caucasus (quote from the book by A. R. Shikhsaidov "Essay on the History, source studies, and archeography of medieval Dagestan" (Makhachkala, 2008, p. 51): "All cities located within the territory of the Caucasus are located in the southern part of the Caucasus. In this region, they are called Azerbaijan, and all roads (passages - pax) are called abvabs. At the end (i.e. at the border. - A. Sh. Azerbaijan has roads leading from there to the Khazars... across the road, which is called Derbend. There is another pass (pax) and a large city called Khazar" (this was the name of Kabala , the first capital of Caucasian Albania - N. V.).
Based on the above examples, we can hardly agree with A. Shahinyan's conclusion that "there was nothing in common between the province of Azerbaijan and the administrative unit of Arran-Albania during the period when the region was part of the Arab Caliphate." The "reason for this" stated by A. Shahinyan, i.e., that "the historical Atropatene was conquered by the Muslims and incorporated into the Arab Caliphate at the earliest stage of the conquest in 642" (a reference to the famous and talented arabist O. Bolshakov), is also historically incorrect: firstly, because the conquest of Azerbaijan by the Arabs began not in 642 (then they were able to capture Nihavend, an important point that blocked the road to Azerbaijan for the Arabs), but a year later - in 643. The first conquest of Derbend, then the successful conquest of Mughan and unsuccessful campaigns against Tiflis, the country of Alans and Albania should be attributed to the same year. The next Arab conquest of Albania took place a year later, in 644, and the process of conquest itself, with alternating successes from one side to the other, lasted for many more decades, including the first half of the eighth century. All this is also known.

Further, A. Shahinyan finally moves on to the main topic, the Nakhchivan issue, which he conceived, and first of all again criticizes academician 3. Buniyatov (p. 110), who, in his words, "justifies" the belonging of Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan, referring to the famous Arab geographer of the XIII century. Iakuta al-Hamawi (see [3. Buniyatov, p. 143]). But at the same time, for some reason, A. Shahinyan quotes not from the study of 3. Buniyatov himself, where the latter had to zealously defend his position, but quotes his translation of an excerpt from the work of Yaqut, which contains material on Nashav-Nakhchivan (cf.: [Yaqut al-Hamawi. Mu'jam al-buldan (Information about Azerbaijan). Baku, 1983, p. 2]).

According to this information, in which Yakut, referring to unnamed informants, refers to Nashav as a city of Azerbaijan or Arran, bordering Armenia, there is also another popularly known name for this city Nakhdzhuvan or Nakdzhuvan.

This well-known report of Yakut, which is cited in the works of other researchers of the region, is supplemented by Yakut himself, who in another article entitled "Nakhjuvan" (or Nakjuvan) He definitely refers to it as a small town located "in the extreme borders of Azerbaijan" (Yakut, V, p. 276).

page 208
According to A. Shahinyan, Yakut, who lived in the 13th century without being "north of Araks", could hardly have known which state entity this city was at that time (at the beginning of the 13th century) (p.110). He goes on to "explain": "It is known for certain that on the eve and at the beginning of the Mongol conquests in the Near East (in the period between 1213-1229, when Yakut al-Hamawi was preparing his dictionary) Nakhchivan was already under the rule of the Turkic-speaking Ildsgizid dynasty (1136-1225), which ruled not in the South Caucasus, but in neighboring Azerbaijan..." (here the author refers to B. Harutyunyan and others and expresses his agreement with this fact).

It is worth noting that the great Russian scholar, Academician I. Y. Krachkovsky, called Iakut's work a collection of "treasures accumulated in Arabic literature for six centuries" [Academician I. Y. Krachkovsky. Selected Works, Moscow-L., 1997, vol. 4, p. 339]. In fact, his vocabulary contains information based not only on Yakut's own observations and research, but also on the material of his predecessors, whom he names by name, as well as information that has not come down to us directly. The study of Arabic sources, their comparative analysis shows that it is absolutely not necessary for such an author as Yakut to be or not to be in some area that he mentions,or to be a contemporary of the events described by him. His authority is sufficiently high, and the information is sufficiently well-founded, to doubt his data, especially if it is confirmed by other sources...

As for Yakut's information about Nashav-Nakhjuvan-Nakhchivan, first of all, in the first article, if he doubts (Azerbaijan or Arran), but nevertheless does not write anywhere about its belonging to Armenia, and, secondly, further, in the same article (V, p. 286), Yakut adds the well-known information of the 9th-century author al-Balazuri about the conquest of this city by the Arab commander Habib ibn Maslama, about the treaty concluded with its inhabitants, about its administrative status (that it is the main city of al-Basfurjan). This part of Yakut's account of Nashawa suggests that it concerns the Arab period.

And it is hardly necessary to accuse Yakut of allegedly not knowing which state Nakhchivan was part of at the beginning of the XIII century, and write that the Ildegizid dynasty (i.e., the Atabeks of Azerbaijan, about whom 3. Buniyatov wrote a whole study) ruled not in the South Caucasus, but in neighboring Azerbaijan. There is a clear ignorance of the history of the region in general and the Atabeg state of Azerbaijan in particular. After all, it was Arran (i.e., present-day Northern Azerbaijan) that was given as an allotment - "ikta" to Shamsaddin Ildegiz, who first settled in Barda (in 1136).In 1146, he arrived in Nakhchivan, which was previously ruled together with the main city of Arran for this period, Ganja, by the Seljuk Emir Gara Sungur, and after him by the Emir of Chawli. The contemporary Arab author Ibn al-Asir calls Atabeg Shamsaddin Ildegiz "the ruler of Ganja and Arran" (Ibn al-Asir, IX, p.21), and the local chronicler Mkhitar Gosh "the ruler of the city of Nakhchivan and the region" (trans. p. 250). It is interesting to know to which region A. Shahinyan refers the first capital city of the Ildegizids Nakhchivan? Isn't this city located in the South Caucasus? And how can one write after this that the Ildegizids ruled not in the South Caucasus, but in neighboring Azerbaijan (meaning Southern Azerbaijan)? By saying this, does A. Shahinyan really think that in such a primitive way he will separate Nakhchivan from Azerbaijan and join it to Armenia? It's not serious at all.

In fact, judging by A. Shahinyan, a rather curious picture is emerging: Armenia and Azerbaijan are located outside the borders of the South Caucasus (Transcaucasia) (p.110). It is clear that in the concept of "Azerbaijan", the author here puts only the lands of Southern, Iranian Azerbaijan. What about Armenia? If it is called separately from the South Caucasus and is not included in its borders, then it turns out that A. Shahinyan confirms the fact that Armenia and its population do not belong to the territory of the South Caucasus-Transcaucasia, and the Armenians are an alien people here? Let us recall the following words of the famous historian A. Novoseltsev: "The division of the Armenian state between Byzantium and Iran (meaning 591 BC) sharply reduced the territorial limits of Armenia. But it was after this that the spread of the Armenian ethnic group to the north-east in the direction of Syunik and further Albania increased. One of the reasons for this phenomenon was the diversity and weak connection of the tribes of this part of Transcaucasia with each other, as a result of which they were relatively quickly assimilated (i.e., they were not Armenians). Christianization, which was carried out here in the first and sixth centuries by the Armenian and closely related Albanian Church, also played an important role" (Puti razvitiya feodolizma, Moscow, 1972, p. 45).

page 209
Thus, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. Novoseltsev confirms the fact that the "Armenian ethnic group" penetrated Syunik and Albania (i.e., the territory of modern Northern Azerbaijan) only after the partition of Armenia between Iran and Byzantium under the treaty of 591. This once again confirms that there were no Armenians on the territory of Nakhchivan or in other areas of Azerbaijan (including Karabakh) before that. The most massive penetration of Armenians into the territories of the Azerbaijani khanates that existed at the beginning of the XIX century occurred after the Turkmanchay Treaty concluded between Russia and Iran in 1828.And this is a well - known fact, although clearly ignored.

The next alleged "defeat" by A. Shahinyan of Buniyat's variants concerning the administrative affiliation of Nakhchivan in the era of Arab power is the failure to mention the name of this city in the lists of cities of Azerbaijan or Arran (Albania), "conscientiously" compiled by Arab authors of the IX-X centuries. Ibn Khordadbeh, Qudama, Ibn Rustoy, al-Ya'qubih, Ibn al-Faqih, al-Mas'udi, al-Istahri, Ibn Haukal, al-Muqaddasi, etc.

Yes, Arab authors, depending on their knowledge, actually tried to "conscientiously" compile their information on various issues, including the historical geography of the region we are interested in in this case. For us, as well as for A. Shahinyan, the names of such places as Nashava-Nakhchivan, as well as al-Busfurrajan (Basfurjan), mentioned in connection with the Arab administrative-territorial division of the South Caucasus under their rule in this region, are of particular interest.

First of all, I would like to note that the information of Arab authors on this issue is not always unambiguous and differs from each other (I wrote about this in my article "Changing the historical geography of Azerbaijan as a result of the Arab conquest". 1987, pp. 46-87; and also in the introduction to my 1986 work "Ibn Khordadbeh. The Book of Ways and Countries"). This applies not only to the Arab administrative unit Arminiya I V mentioned above, but also to a number of cities that did not always clearly belong to a particular South Caucasus region, including Nashava-Nakhchivan.

It should be noted that the 9th-century authors mentioned by A. Shahinyan (Ibn Khordadbeh, Ibn Rusta, Ibn al-Faqih, Kudama ibn Ja'far, al-Ya'qubi) refer to Nashava only as a locality within the Arab administrative unit Arminiya, which included, as we have already noted, not only Armenia proper, but Arran (Albania) and Jurzan (Georgia). Thus, in Ibn Rust (p. 106): "The districts (kuvar) of Arminiyyah: Arran, Jurzan, Nashawa, Hilat, Dabil, Siraj, Sughdabil, Bajunais, Arjish, Sisajan and al-Bab wa-l-Abbab (i.e. Derbend)"; in Kudama (p.246): "To the north of it (Taruna) is the country of Arminiya. Its districts are: Jurzan, Dabil, Barzand, Siraj Tair, Bajunais, Arjish, Hilat, al-Sisajan, Arran, Calikala, al-Busfurjan, the main city (kasaba) of Nashawa."

Ibn Khordadbeh, Ibn al-Faqih, and al-Ya'qubi, i.e. the Arab authors of the ninth century named by A. Shahinyan, actually name Nashava-Nakhchivan among the localities attributed to Armenia III (Arminiya III: al-Busfurrajan, Dabil, Siraj Tayr, Baghrawand, Nashava). Al-Balazuri (p. 236), their contemporary, who called among his informants "men of science" from the inhabitants of Barda, Dabil, Hilat and other cities of Arran and Armenia, also has information about the Arab administrative division included in the caliphate of the South Caucasus region: but it differs from the versions of his predecessors, since the name of Nashava was used in the Khilafah. it is not mentioned in any of the two options given by him on this issue.

Thus, it is obvious that the Arab authors of the 9th century used the term Arminia as an Arab administrative unit, which united under this name all the South Caucasian lands conquered by the Arabs, whether they were territories inhabited by Albanians, Iberians, Armenians, or other peoples who inhabited these lands. This well-known truth is also indisputable. However, it is completely wrong to speak about the specific territorial affiliation of Nashava-Nakhchivan, referring only to these sources. Moreover, there is another Arabic source of the 9th century mentioned by A. Shahinyan, the author of which is the famous al-Balazuri. According to his report (p. 236), even during the reign of the Sasanian Shah Kavad (Kubad) I, the Persian troops that opposed the advancing Khazars "entered the region of Arran and captured the territories between the Araz (Arak) River and Shirvap", i.e., Nakhchivan inclusive. This is also confirmed by the presence of the Sasanian mint in Nakhchivan, where coins with the monogram "Nakhch" were minted a little later (see: [Pakhomov E. A. Coins of Nakhchivan. Izv. AN Az.SSR, 1949, No. 5]).

I would also like to mention the fact denied by A. Shahinyan and other Armenian researchers about the southern borders of Arran-Albania, which passed along the Arak River.

page 210
As for the authors of the tenth century named by A. Shaginyan, who presented a list of South Caucasian cities, they also in many cases, obviously due to their lack of knowledge, also provided erroneous information about the belonging of some of them to a particular country. This confusion was especially true for some of the cities of Arran-Albania and Djurzan-Georgia, which were part of the Arab administrative region of Arminia at a certain historical period. In this regard, the information of the famous Arab author al-Muqaddasi mentioned by A. Shahinyan (who wrote in the 80s of the tenth century), who did not name Nashava-Nakhchivan as part of any of the South Caucasus regions, which in this period were actually ruled by local feudal rulers, deserves attention. Al-Muqaddasi mentions Nashawa (p.382) only in connection with the trade routes leading to this city from Ardabil and Marand. Another famous Arabic author, al-Mas'udi, who wrote in 943, does not mention Nakhchivan at all.

As for al-Istakhri (writing in the 30s of the tenth century) and Ibn Haukal (writing in the middle of the tenth century), their information about Nashawa is not at all unambiguous. Thus, al-Istakhri (p.189), naming the borders of Arran, writes that they stretch (from east to west) from Bab al-Abwab-Derbend to Tiflis, and (from north to south) to the Nakhchivan region near the Arake River. Ibn Haukal mistakenly places Nakhchivan south of Araks on his map.

Al-Muqaddasi (p. 374), due to the ambiguity of the material about the cities of the region, gives, one might say, a frivolous argument in favor of the city's belonging to a particular country. with Tiflis it refers to Armenia (whereas a page earlier al-Muqaddasi referred to Tiflis as the city of Arran). Al-Mas'udi, Iaqut, and other Arab authors, when they give doubtful information about a particular area, point out the unreliability of these reports, concluding them with the words: "Allah knows best."

Instructive in this respect are the words of the famous Armenian author N. Adonts [Armenia in the era of Justinian. St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 22]: "If Armenian claims reached Nisibin, then it is clear that this kind of exaggeration could have been allowed by the Syrians." To avoid such extremes, every researcher (especially controversial issues) should be critical and very careful about the data of any, even seemingly reliable source. And be sure to compare not only data from different sources, but also take into account the realities of the period under study. This is also a well-known truth.

I will add that the famous Abu-r-Reyhan al-Biruni, who wrote at the beginning of the XI century, in his Mas'ud canon, which made him famous in the East [Biruni. Selected works, vol. V, p. 462] places not only Nashava-Nakhchivan, but also the Armenian city of Dabil-Dvin in Azerbaijan. And here, of course, the researcher must rely on the realities; for it was at this time (1022-1049)that the researcher was born. Dvin was ruled by the Emir of the Shaddadid state of Azerbaijan, Abulasvar Shavur, with the title of Arranshah. Commentary on the "Narration of Vardapet Aristakas Lastivertzi" (Moscow, 1968, p. 158).

So, the information of Arab authors of the IX-X centuries. information about the cities of the South Caucasus, including Nashav-Nakhchivan, is very valuable, but nevertheless, due to the lack of awareness of these authors, in some cases they are contradictory and need to be clarified.

According to A. Shahinyan (p. 110), the Arab authors Kudama, Iakut al-Hamawi, al-Balazuri, and Khalifa ibn Hayyat "consider Nashawa to be the capital of al-Busfurrajan", identifying the latter with the Armenian region of Vaspurakan. The fact that Nashawa is the main city of the Arab region of al-Busfurrujan (or al-Busfurrajan or al-Basfurjan) is not disputed by us at all. However, our latest research on the history of Nakhchivan "from the Arabs to the Mongols "(see: [Nakhchivan from the Arabs to the Mongols (VII-XII centuries). Baku, 2005, in Azerbaijani]) led to very interesting conclusions regarding the administrative Arabic name al-Busfurrajan, which is available in Arabic sources. So, it turned out that, despite the obvious similarity of the names of ancient Basoropedi and early medieval Vaspurakan with the Arabic Busfurrajan, it would be erroneous to identify them, especially by location, since the political transformations that took place in the region also led to administrative and territorial changes, either reducing or, on the contrary, expanding the borders of a particular region.

Let us turn to the sources that make it possible to clarify the connection of Nashava-Nakhchivan with the Arab al-Busfurrajan. It should be noted that almost all researchers identify it with the Armenian district of Vaspurakan, which, after the above-mentioned treaty of 591, poli-

page 211
It was politically subordinated to the Sassanids (A. Ter-Gevondyan, p. 19). Ibn Khordadbeh (p.123-124) also mentions Nashawa as one of their subordinate lands "up to Shirvan".

According to sources (compare, for example, al-Balazuri), the Arabs in the process of conquest concluded contracts with the ruler of each conquered area separately, and in some cases (if the ruler was absent for some reason, died, fled, etc.) with its population. In Nakhchivan, a separate treaty was concluded between the Arab general Habib ibn Maslama and the population of the city.

According to al-Balazuri, the ruler (batrik) of al-Busfurrujan (Vaspurakan), having arrived in the Arab-conquered Nashawa, also separately concluded a treaty on behalf of his entire country and two other regions (whose names are not readable) with the condition of political submission and payment of taxes.

The conclusion of separate agreements with al-Busfurrujan and Nashava indicates the city's insubordination to the Armenian batrik of Vaspurakan and confirms the presence of its own local ruler, most likely a Sasanian protege.

Stepannos Orbelian, the author of the 13th century, has a report on the inclusion of Nakhchivan in the first and second centuries AD to the Syunik region as a regional center. Without disputing this fact, let us recall the above-mentioned words of A. P. Novoseltsev that the penetration of the Armenian ethnic group into Syunik and Albania increased only after the VI century AD; i.e., it is incorrect to consider Syunik Armenian, as A. Shahinyan does.

Apparently, Nakhchivan, attributed by early sources to the Atropatene Basoropedi, and sometimes to Syunik, as a result of the first offensive of the Sassanids, and then the Arabs, together with the modified territories of those localities, became subordinate to the Arabs and began to play the role of an administrative center, now Arab. The Arabs, who conquered Armenian Vaspurakan, added to it in the course of their conquest the territories of not only the Armenian proper, but also neighboring peoples, and created a new artificially formed administrative unit, Arab al-Busfurrujan, with its center in Nakhchivan. Thus, the new Arab administrative district of al-Busfurrujan with its center in Nashav was different from the Armenian Vaspurakan proper with its known center in Van, just as the Arab province of Arminiya was different from Armenia proper. That is why the Arab authors include al-Busfurrujan (of course, Arabic) in the composition of Arran-Albania, and not Armenia. As for the opinion of A. Shahinyan that Vaspurakan occupied territories even north of the Araks (apparently, the artificial movement of its borders to the north was due to Nakhchivan), this is just an ordinary "stretch" to satisfy his conjectures. And it is not necessary to make a discovery, including Vaspurakan (without its original South Araksin lands, and where to put them?) to the "administrative unit of Arminia, i.e. Armenia". It is better to familiarize A. Shaginyan with another local Derbend source of the XI century, in which the author, in contrast to even the simultaneous Arabic sources, describes the limits of Arabic Arminia, gives the following information:: "As for Arminia... then its borders on the west side are the country of al-Arman (Bilad al-Arman), on the east and south the borders of Arran and Azerbaijan and part of al-Jazeera, on the north part of the country of Arran... " (see: [Minorsky. Shaddadids, p. 6, Arabic, text: p. 20]).

Further, A. Shahinyan, who believes that he managed to consolidate Nakhchivan as part of the Arab province of Arminiya and, of course, within Armenia proper, continues to develop his speculations, claiming that " after the disbanding of the Arab province of Arminiya and the restoration of the Bagratids of Armenian and Albanian statehood in 886... Nashava (Nakhchivan) continued to be part of Armenia". Again, this is witnessed by the aforementioned Arab geographers-travelers al-Istakhri and Ibn Haukal, whose information we have analyzed above. Here the author also cites the reports of medieval Armenian authors Tovma Artsruni, Iovkhannes Draskhanakertzi and others, which allegedly confirm his conclusions, according to which Nakhchivan belonged to Armenia from the end of the IX century (from 886), apparently until the liquidation of the Bagratids.

It should be noted that Nakhchivan, which was often attacked from outside, according to sources, remained under the jurisdiction of Arab emirs or their clients (mawl) at the beginning of the IX century. One of the latter was Yezid ibn Hisn (Husn), according to al-Ia'qubi [Tarikh, II, 564], a client of one of the Arab tribes, a local Muslim, who, despite his obvious separatism, for a long time (up to the middle of the IX century) was the emir of a strategically important Arab point in the region - Nakhchivan. A fairly competent Arab historian, al-Ia'qubi, has quite interesting and important information for the history of Nakhchivan.-

page 212
the events of this very difficult period for the peoples of the region. For it was at that time that the Emir of Nakhchivan, taking advantage of the anti-Arab movement that had spread throughout the region, also tried to consolidate his position in Nakhchivan, i.e., to separate himself from the caliphate. However, Khalid ibn Mazyad, the caliph governor of Azerbaijan, Arran and Armenia, appointed in the late 1920s, managed to suppress the rebels, but was soon dismissed from office because, according to al-Balazuri (p. 211), he accepted gifts from Armenians. According to al-Ya'qubi (vol. II, p. 580), when the next caliph governor Hamduya ibn Ali ibn Fadl arrived in Nakhchivan in 849, he was met here by the same Yezid ibn Hisn. All this information denies the fact that Nakhchivan also belonged to Armenia during this period, or rather, to the Armenian family of Artsrunids.

Further, A. Shahinyan, referring to the reports of Armenian authors (T. Artsruni, Y. Draskhanakertzi "and many others"), confidently says "that the city of Nakhchivan belonged to the Kingdom of Great Armenia restored by the Bagratids after 886." He also claims that, "...the Bagratids took Nakhchivan from the Vaspurakan princes of the Artsrunids and handed it over to their other Sunid vassals."

First, the above information by al-Ya'qubi itself suggests that even in the first half of the 9th century, even a little later, in Nakhchivan, as in the entire Arab province of Arminiya, the Arab administration was still strong and there was an Arab garrison, as well as a tax official (amil) and the local ruler is a Muslim (for he was the mawlya of the Arabs).

And secondly, already in 893, i.e. just a few years after the restoration of the Armenian and Albanian kingdoms, when the Caliphate was weakened, but still quite strong, the caliphal governor of the region, Muhammad ibn Abu-s-Saj (although at that time the province of Arminiya actually did not exist), on the instructions of his ruler, spoke out against the Armenian king Smbat I; the same policy continued under the successor of Muhammad-at that time already the ruler of the Azerbaijani state of the Sajids Yusuf (all these events are described in the works of A. Ter-Gevondyan, 3. Buniyatov, M. Sharifli, V. Minorsky, etc.).

During this most difficult period for the region, when there was still an Arab garrison in Nakhchivan, Yusuf appointed as Emir of Nakhchivan and Gokhtan (Ordubad with Julfa) a representative of the Abudulafid family, who at intervals ruled here with the title "Nakhchivan Shah" until 1075. I will not dwell on the events of those years when, according to the same Arabic sources mentioned by A. Shahinyan (al-Istakhri, Ibn Haukal, al-Muqaddasi, etc.), Azerbaijan, Arran-Albania, and Armenia proper were ruled by a "single ruler", i.e., representatives of the Sajids and Salarids (Ibn Haukal, p. 224). However, I note that in these times even the city of Dvin (Dubil) It often changed hands, and the ruler of Nakhchivan, the" valiant " Emir Abu Dulaf (sung in the poems of famous poets Asadi Tuei and Gatran Tabrizi), who participated in various campaigns, set up camp "in a place called Kakyar" on the territory of Vaspurakan to expand his borders, according to Asogik (p. 133). and then he defeated the troops sent by Ashot Artsruni.

Thus, if we accept A. Shahinyan's conclusion that Nakhchivan belonged to Armenia after 886, and in this case to Vaspurakan, then what about such historical facts?

I would also like to mention the tragic event mentioned by A. Shahinyan, which allegedly took place in Nashav-Nakhchivan in 705. Ambiguous attitude of researchers (3. Buniyatov, A. Ter-Gevondyan, R. Mammadov, etc.) to this question, which is reflected in local (Moses Kalankatuysky, Gevond, Asogik, etc.) and Arabic (al-Balazuri, al-Ya'qubi, al-Kufi) sources, as can be seen, continues to this day.

According to local authors, the Arab governor lured all the local nobility to the city church and ordered them to be burned alive [Gevond, p. 22; Asogik, p. 92-93; M. Kalankatuysky, p. 190]. A number of historians [R. Mammadov, p.38; A. Ter-Gevondyan, p. 77], based on this report, call Nakhchivan the place of the incident. However, Arabic authors, for whom the replacement of the place name would hardly have made any difference, give a different version. Al-Balazuri (p. 242) and al-Ya'qubi (Tarikh, vol.II, pp. 324-325) refer to the place of the incident as "the churches of the Hilat region", and al-Kufi (p. 13), simply "the middle of Arminiyya". Academician 3. Buniyatov, taking into account the results of archaeological excavations conducted under the leadership of the Armenian academician I. Orbeli (he discovered the remains of a burnt church of the period of Arab rule in the city of Nakhchivan of the same name, located in the Kars region of Turkey), considers Kars Nakhchivan to be the place of burning of representatives of the local nobility [Atabekov State..., Baku, 1978, pp. 195-196]. The analysis of contradictory reports of sources and literature, if it does not make it possible to unambiguously attribute the mentioned event directly to Nakhchivan, nevertheless allows us to come to a conclusion

page 213
it concluded that both the city and the surrounding area were severely affected by the continued punitive measures of the Arab governor, directed against the entire population.

However, even this event does not confirm the fact that Nakhchivan belongs to Armenia. L As for the fact that the activities of "Bagratids, Artsrunids and other Armenian princes", according to A. Shahinyan, are directly connected "with Nakhchivan on the Arax, in the Great Armenian region of Vaspurakan, at the foot of Ararat" (how many emotions?!), this connection was simply, if you can call it that, a neighbor's one and not always kind.

Another "discovery" by A. Shaginyan is interesting. If 3. Buniyatov found the second Nakhchivan mentioned by Iakut in the Kars vilayet of Turkey, why didn't A. Shahinyan find the city of the same name somewhere else, for example, "on the western shore of Lake Urmia", which, according to him, was "the administrative center of the Trabi district of the historical region of Persoarmenia" and which in the Arab time was located in the city of For a long time it was "part of the province of Azarbaijan" (p. 112).

I don't understand why this "discovery" was needed. After all, Iakut, who mentioned two Nakhchivans, places them on the territory of Azerbaijan or Arran, but not in Armenia. Thus, it is obvious from all the above that the analysis of the relevant information from the writings of the "founders" of the "Arab-Muslim historiographic and geographical school", as A. Shahinyan calls them, does not at all indicate that the Azerbaijani city of Nakhchivan belonged to the territory of Armenia under the Arabs and after. On the contrary, they show that the Arab administrative district named al-Basfurrajan with its center in Nashav-Nakhchivan was the same artificially formed name of the territory occupied by the Arabs during the conquest, as well as the Arabic administrative name "Arminiya", which confuses many amateurs. The latter, as is known, included not only Armenia proper, called al-Arman by the Arabs, but also all the other countries of the South Caucasus conquered by the Arabs. Arab sources refer to the district of al-Basfurrajan as part of the country of Arran (mainly present-day Northern Azerbaijan)and indicate that this newly formed district, in the main city of which from the very first days of the conquest there was an Arab garrison guarding the district, was geographically different from the simultaneously existing lake in the south-east. Van of the Armenian region of Vaspurakan with a famous center in the city of Van.

And before the Seljuk invasion, the Nakhchivan Emirate, ruled by Abu Dulaf with the title "Nakhchivanshah", from the liquidation of this emirate by Sultan Alp Arslan until the fall of the Shaddadid state (1075), was located within the latter. The center of Nakhchivan Emirate was able to maintain its military and strategic importance even during the reign of the Seljuk Emir.

I would like to conclude this review, which left an unpleasant residue in my soul, with the words of the well-known Armenian scholar K. P. Patkanov, who demonstrated his objective attitude to the criticism of Fr. Luka Injijyan [according to his description, "a deep expert on Armenian antiquities and geography at the beginning of the current century" (i.e., XIX century-N. V.)], directed against the work of the French Armenian Saint-Martin (he published Mcmoires sur l'Armenie in Paris in 1819): "Usually, when the researcher's view is obscured by patriotism and deprived of the objectivity necessary in such cases, the results of the work are far from corresponding to the enthusiasm and effort spent on them. So it was with Injijian. In his objections, there were not so much weighty arguments as demands that the French scientist treat the monument of Armenian antiquity with due reverence. In the end, the result of the controversy was that every impartial reader unwittingly takes the side of Saint-Martin, who supports his opinion scientifically and with a whole arsenal of evidence, while his opponent confines himself to unsubstantiated refutations. (Preface by K. Patkanov to the book. Armenian Geography of the seventh century A.D., attributed to Moses of Khoren. St. Petersburg, 1872, p. VII).

I have nothing to add.

P.S. Frankly speaking, it causes not so much indignation as regret that A. Shaginyan's article was written "with the funds of the grant of the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists MD - 1664-2012. 6, the project "Early Medieval geography of the countries of the South Caucasus (Transcaucasia) and the Armenian Highlands"".

Creating a problem again?

Academician, Vice-President of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan NAILA VELIKHANLI

page 214

Permanent link to this publication: